10th Circuit had oddball reasoning in support the police in a
warrantless search with video surveillance with a camera mounted in the
public way. Cameras are ubiquitous, so no one can reasonably expect
privacy from being seen in public.

We've got Google Ring cameras everywhere. I know when I walk the dog,
facial recognition allows me to be tracked and a profile is being built
about me concerning my travels about the neighborhood.

The difference here is that the police mounted a camera on a line pole,
high above the street, and pointed it at the front of a guy's home. The
camera was monitored 15 hours a day for 68 days straight.

What can be done with recordings from all those other cameras, and
privacy expectations from them, is rather different than what can be
done with a police camera installed over the long term.

Still, if there's suddenly a privacy right in what can be seen when in
the public way, does that affect an individual just taking photographs
of what he finds interesting?

U.S. vs. Hay

I had no idea there were V.A. police. They had a tip that a man on
disability wasn't disabled, so they set up a camera on a line pole,
recording video for 15 hours a day for 68 days. The defendant said it
was a violation of his privacy and the government needed a warrant.

He lost.

https://gizmodo.com/feds-can-film-your-front-porch-without-warrant-1851352414

Lehto did a video. But he avoided making a constitutional argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTBp1V5m3A

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:25:25 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

10th Circuit had oddball reasoning in support the police in a
warrantless search with video surveillance with a camera mounted in the public way. Cameras are ubiquitous, so no one can reasonably expect
privacy from being seen in public.

We've got Google Ring cameras everywhere. I know when I walk the dog,
facial recognition allows me to be tracked and a profile is being built
about me concerning my travels about the neighborhood.

The difference here is that the police mounted a camera on a line pole,
high above the street, and pointed it at the front of a guy's home. The camera was monitored 15 hours a day for 68 days straight.

What can be done with recordings from all those other cameras, and
privacy expectations from them, is rather different than what can be
done with a police camera installed over the long term.

Still, if there's suddenly a privacy right in what can be seen when in
the public way, does that affect an individual just taking photographs
of what he finds interesting?

U.S. vs. Hay

I had no idea there were V.A. police.

Every administrative agency has GS-1811 special agents. VA, EPA, NASA, HUD, BIA, they all have armed federal agents working for them.

They had a tip that a man on
disability wasn't disabled, so they set up a camera on a line pole,
recording video for 15 hours a day for 68 days. The defendant said it
was a violation of his privacy and the government needed a warrant.

He lost.

He should have lost. I agree he has no privacy right from what can be seen in public, to include the outside of his home. If he wants to hide his home from public view, he needs to go to Wyoming and buy a huge tract of land and put
his house in the middle of it under some trees.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:25:25 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

10th Circuit had oddball reasoning in support the police in a
warrantless search with video surveillance with a camera mounted in the >>public way. Cameras are ubiquitous, so no one can reasonably expect
privacy from being seen in public.

We've got Google Ring cameras everywhere. I know when I walk the dog, >>facial recognition allows me to be tracked and a profile is being built >>about me concerning my travels about the neighborhood.

The difference here is that the police mounted a camera on a line pole, >>high above the street, and pointed it at the front of a guy's home. The >>camera was monitored 15 hours a day for 68 days straight.

What can be done with recordings from all those other cameras, and
privacy expectations from them, is rather different than what can be
done with a police camera installed over the long term.

Still, if there's suddenly a privacy right in what can be seen when in
the public way, does that affect an individual just taking photographs
of what he finds interesting?

U.S. vs. Hay

I had no idea there were V.A. police.

Every administrative agency has GS-1811 special agents. VA, EPA, NASA, HUD, >BIA, they all have armed federal agents working for them.

And yet, there's no one to go after the PPP and other COVID relief
programs fraud. That's merely $10s of billions.

They had a tip that a man on
disability wasn't disabled, so they set up a camera on a line pole, >>recording video for 15 hours a day for 68 days. The defendant said it
was a violation of his privacy and the government needed a warrant.

He lost.

He should have lost. I agree he has no privacy right from what can be seen in >public, to include the outside of his home. If he wants to hide his home from >public view, he needs to go to Wyoming and buy a huge tract of land and put >his house in the middle of it under some trees.

I'm still troubled by the reasoning, not that it was the public way, but because of all those other cameras.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)