S.D.Ind.: CI’s bringing video surveillance into defendant’s house was not Fourth Amendment violation

CI’s bringing video surveillance into defendant’s house was not Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Phill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142286 (S.D. Ind. October 2, 2013):

Although the Seventh Circuit has not specifically addressed whether video, rather than audio, recording by a CI consensually admitted to the suspect’s home constitutes a prohibited search, the question has been addressed in many other circuits, with the same result in every case: a CI’s use of video recording equipment is no less constitutional than the use of audio recording equipment when the CI has been admitted with the consent of the suspect and remains in the presence of the suspect for the duration of the recording. See United States v. Davis, 326 F.3d 361, 366 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that a video recording by a CI is no less allowable than an audio recording); United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 194, 200 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[I]f a person consents to the presence at a meeting of another person who is willing to reveal what occurred, the Fourth Amendment permits the government to obtain and use the best available proof of what the latter person could have testified about.”); United States v. Brathwaite, 458 F.3d 376, 380 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e are unable to find a constitutionally relevant difference between audio and video surveillance.”); United States v. Wahchumwah, 710 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We hold that an undercover agent’s warrantless use of a concealed audio-video device in a home into which he has been invited by a suspect does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”).