AR: No REP in camera planted in someone else’s bedroom

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a camera planted for video voyeurism in someone else’s bedroom. Powell v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 371, 2020 Ark. App. LEXIS 416 (Sept. 2, 2020):

We affirm the court’s denial of Powell’s motion to suppress the SD card because “a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated by the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property.” … This is true even if the person claims ownership in the property seized. … We have also held that “[t]he seizure of abandoned items . . . is said to be a seizure ‘without a search.'” … We find it nonsensical for Powell to claim that he retained a privacy interest in a hidden camera that he secretly placed in the Bullards’ bedroom. It would defy logic and reason for us to hold that Powell’s Fourth Amendment rights were somehow violated when the Bullards reported the hidden camera to police and invited them to investigate.

This entry was posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.