Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras | Hacker News Reader

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

news.cnet.com

7 pointsstfu5 comments

I learned something today.

The 4th ammendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note its not private property so if you have a large multi-acre plot of land apparently you do not have a right to prevent it from being searched without a warrant (except the area immediately surrounding a residence). This has been upheld in court in a previous case where the defendent's land was searched without a warrant and they found a marijuana field a mile away from the home.

This ruling extends that precedent to include hidden surveillance cameras.

Note its not private property

Actually it is private property, and the size of the property does not matter either.

The court ruled the way it did because the area of the property that was monitored was deemed to fall under the category of "open fields"

This would likely be different if it could be shown that the owner was actively maintaining this area of his property, or erected some sort of barrier, or something to ensure that the area of his property he would like protected is not just an open field. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be a residence, although this would be the most unquestionable.

Even still, I think it is a bad ruling, and I hope that it is overturned.

The title of the article is misleading. The issue here isn't about putting cameras on private property. As I understand it, the judge was saying that in a place that the police could have searched or could have themselves hidden and watched in person without a warrant they can also put a camera without a warrant. I'm as bothered as just about anybody about the erosion of 4th amendment protections, but this doesn't appear to me to be one of those.

This is not about someone's residence. It is about rules for searching "open fields."

Let me guess, hidden surveillance of law enforcement by citizens is not covered, right?

BUT - If you find the cameras, you get to keep them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com