Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 25, 2023

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition to review the legality of warrantless surveillance from a camera placed on a utility pole, leaving in place a conflicting set of interpretations about the scope of privacy protection in America.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... The Supremes left in place an appellate ruling that gives federal agents in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island " the areas covered by the First Circuit Court of Appeals " the right to record people's houses from the street as much as they want without a warrant, despite legal precedent to the contrary in Massachusetts.

Last November, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Supreme Court to review Moore v. United States in order to clarify the ambit of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable search and seizure.

The case followed from a drug investigation in which agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) set up an inconspicuous surveillance camera on a utility pole in Massachusetts to watch a residence over an eight-month period. The camera provided real-time surveillance capabilities and was set up without a warrant. ...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-05-24 09:18 PM | Reply

The kangaroo court is waiting for a bigger bribe from either side before weighing in.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-05-25 07:01 AM | Reply

Once upon a time Nixon's comment in #2 would have been laughable. But now, with the likes of Clarence on the bench, we know it is all too possible.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-05-25 02:35 PM | Reply

It is an interesting issue. Generally courts have held that anything that can be seen by an ordinary person in a public place is fair game, for example, whatever can be seen by a person walking down the same street where the pole camera is placed. By that metric, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy if your house can be seen from the street. That is why you need curtains If the camera is placed at a height which allows view of an area not visible by a pedestrian, for example, through and upstairs window or over a privacy fence, than that is different, there is an expectation of privacy. I don't know if that was the concern in this case.

Certainly, the fact that a camera is recorded 24/7 (as opposed to a pedestrian walking by) is a factor, but you have to consider the impact that would have on the right for any of us to have security cameras on our properties. For example, because of the way our driveways are positioned, my camera gives a clear view of my neighbors property, and his does of mine. Fortunately, we are good friends, but I have seen some things that I wish I hadn't. I have tried to use the privacy features to "blur" view of his comings and goings, but then I can't see package deliveries, which is one of the main reasons I have the camera installed.

#4 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2023-05-25 04:59 PM | Reply

I find it strange that things that are not illegal for citizens are forbidden for the police.

#5 | Posted by flagger at 2023-05-26 07:22 AM | Reply

I find it strange that things that are not illegal for citizens are forbidden for the police.


Can you climb any old pole and put a camera up there to watch your neighbors?

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-05-26 01:08 PM | Reply

"I find it strange that things that are not illegal for citizens are forbidden for the police."


Is potato. You go receive portion of dumplings for your service to Almighty Putin.

#7 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-05-26 02:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort