As video cameras proliferate throughout society, regrettably, the reasonable expectation of privacy from filming is diminished.
However, the concerning part of this case stems from how VA officers collected evidence against Hay.
The veteran appealed his case, arguing that the months-long surveillance of his home crossed a line.
Front of a house shot through a security camera.Photo: Paul Briden (Shutterstock)
The federal courts decision says thatvideo cameras have become ubiquitous,and have therefore diminished our expectations of privacy.
Police officers wear body cameras now, cellphones have cameras, and manydoorbells record your porch.
The court isnt wrong that cameras are everywhere.
Invasive searches of private property typically require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant.
The court argued that was okay because anyone walking by Hays house could see what the camera saw.
However, most people walking past your house are not sitting there for two months straight.
Recording the outside of your home for months on end can paint a pretty intimate picture of your life.
U.S. vs Hay sets a precedent around how cameras can be used by law enforcement.
It clearly defines what federal agents can record, and also what is considered a reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to this case, the front of your home is not private at all.
News from the future, delivered to your present.
