{"id":9028,"date":"2014-01-26T17:26:39","date_gmt":"2013-07-08T07:27:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-04-25T07:35:25","modified_gmt":"2014-04-25T12:35:25","slug":"en-us-34","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9028","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Tenn.: 14 days video surveillance of defendant\u2019s back yard by a pole camera unreasonable, but GFE applies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fourteen days video surveillance of defendant\u2019s back yard by a pole camera, following Anderson-Bagshaw<\/a> from the Sixth Circuit, was unreasonable, but not suppressed because of good faith. United States v. Houston, 965 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Tenn. 2013):
\n<\/p>\n

Although the precise length of reasonable warrantless video surveillance has not been established, the Sixth Circuit in Anderson-Bagshaw has suggested that three weeks is too long. No. 12-3074, 2012 WL 6600331, at *7 (observing that “few people … would expect that the government can constantly film their backyard for over three weeks” without a search warrant); see also Jones, 132 S.Ct. at 964 (Alito, J., concurring in jmt) (observing that the Court “need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark”). Additionally, the Court has no information that the agents attempted to limit the intrusiveness of the video surveillance, other than limiting monitoring of the camera primarily to “daylight hours.” [Doc. 15, Doc. 17, Exh. 4, p.11, \u00b614] For example, neither the testimony at the hearings nor Agent Dobbs’ affidavits state that the agents stopped monitoring the camera when others besides the Defendant and his brother Rocky Houston were at the property. <\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court finds that the warrantless video surveillance of the curtilage of 391 Barnard Narrows Road, beyond fourteen (14) days violated the Defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Note: There is also another opinion United States v. Houston, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184201 (E.D. Tenn. May 17, 2013)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9028","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9028"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9028\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11229,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9028\/revisions\/11229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}