Budget Input Workshop on Aug 28 at 5:00 PM at FOP. See details at Budget Input Workshop

Comments (3)

  1. Dave and Cindy Dyal

    Not to be argumentative, but the law applies to private conversations and not those with no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as conversation on your front door bell device. I am not an attorney nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express. However, I have had this conversation in the course of my duties as a fire chief where we had bystanders taking photos and recording scenes in public around crime scenes and motor vehicle crashes, etc. without the consent of those being recorded, including those involved, the 911 responders, etc. Basically, there is no expectation of privacy in public places such as your front door step.

    Once you are inside someone’s home or business, then there is a level of expectation of privacy in which no one, including the resident, has any expectation that they will be recorded or video’d without their consent. We ran into this with distance-medicine programs and had to get consent from the patients inside their home to be video’d for the other healthcare professional to be able to see them by video device.

    Anyway, the article that Les attached is very good and deals with private conversations and images very well. Generally there is no expectation of privacy outdoors, including our doorsteps and yards. We nearly all have security cameras of one type or other. Those outside cameras are in public. Your indoor cameras are there by your consent. Anyone breaking the law by entering without invitation is outside of any expectation of privacy. 911 responders can enter because they were called, but generally ask to enter anyway — it is the polite thing to do. Patients that are of altered mental states have given implied consent (not relevant here) so responders enter after politely knocking and announcing.

    If it makes one feel better, a simple sign as other neighbors have provided is a nice detail — but generally unnecessary for public video and audio. It may have a significant deterrent effect to let porch pirates know they are being recorded — but has no relevance to your legal liability to record them on your property.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • Les and Carol Abend

      Insightful comments, Dave. I did indicate in my dissertation that there is room for interpretation. And a distinction IS made between video and audio. Additionally, sharing the recording outside of law enforcement may not necessarily be a legally appropriate activity, notwithstanding the lack of ethics involved. If it became a civil matter, I wouldn’t want to test a seasoned attorney. All food for thought. Regardless, using security systems as tools in protecting our homes can’t be disputed.

Leave a comment