I just read [url=http://www.recordnet.com/daily/news/articles/060303-gn-1.php]THIS[/url] article, and I'm wondering if this criminal won't get himself in deeper for having video taped parole officers without thier consent.  I am aware some states restrict phone conversations because people have the expectation of privacy.  But this happened in California, and was not out in public, it was in a private residence.

Does anyone know what the likely outcome of this might be, or what state laws tend toward in relation to non-public videotaping?

Thanks.

Photography boards deal with this a lot. AFAIK, if you're out in public, you can take pictures of whatever you see. If you're in your home you can take pictures of whatever you see. If you're on someone elses property, you follow their rules, although, AFAIK, any pictures that you've taken up until the time that they tell you to leave are legally your property. IOW, they can't demand your film and get away with it. You might check out the forum on [url]www.photo.net[/url]

plain view and out in public is no problem.
if you have to stand on a ladder to look over a wall then that would be illegal because people have a right to privacy.

Sounds perfectly legal to me, it looks like the resident had the camera installed in HIS residence. This is essentially the same thing as Department stores and such videotaping customers while they are on the stores porperty.

Although the stores are not a private residence, they are private property, and those tapes are clearly legal, otherwise they could not be used as evidence in court. Which they are several tousand times a year.

Just my take on this, as a guy who has spent too many hours behind those instore cameras.

Added: No cameras in "private" areas, restrooms/fitting rooms and such.

Thanks for the insights.  It's got me wondering if the lawyers who'll be defending the police will have the law on their side when they move to have the videotape kept out of the trial.

They should be out of luck. If a legal camera records an illegal act, the tape SHOULD be admitted into evidence.

There might be a problem w/ having both video & sound recorded w/o an individual's consent. I seem to remember a case involving a deputy of the Broward Sheriff's Office & his wife turning tricks at home. They tried to use the video tape for leverage after they got busted because she/they had some high profile customers/johns, but alas because it had sound recorded on it too, I believe that they had to do hard time (ie-felony conviction).

For the most part, that's correct, and I know what I'm about to say doesn't really apply here, but since you offered up at least that much info there's some obscure copyright law for buildings that were built after a certain date that prohibits you from photographing them without the owner's consent.  I've always thought that was utterly retarded.

This is legal because he installed it in his own residence.  I think the taping of phone conversations are technically "public," so that's why you have to warn the other person of the recording.  If it is a public place(wal-mart), I'm pretty sure there has to be a warning/notice posted in plain sight.  This is also true of businesses in some states.  What's that old saying again, "You never know who's watching?"