Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expectation of Privacy In Surveillance Cameras
In last month's article, "Can You Hear Me Now — Privacy of Discussions," I examined case law involving cell site location Information (CSLI) to discuss why that case law is inconsistent and deeply problematic when it finds a "reasonable expectation of privacy," as the concept is understood, in CSLI when interpreting the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In summary, I discussed how cases finding a "privacy" violation when law enforcement gathers, without a warrant, CSLI of a target's cellphone over a period of time to determine where the target was over that period, make little sense because the CSLI captured is intercepted from public atmospheres in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy to track the target's public movements, in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Mason, J-44-2020 No. 69 MAP 2019 (March 25, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that audio interceptions, made in the bedroom of toddler-aged victims of a nanny's physical and verbal abuse, when such interceptions were captured by a camera hidden in a bedroom of the house by the father (and house owner) of the toddler-aged victims, did not violate the rights of the defendant (the nanny) under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (Wiretap Act), 18 Pa.C.S. Sections 5701-5782, and so were admissible. The Supreme Court drew a proper and logical conclusion from the facts and the law and, hopefully, brought us closer to a reasonable look at the issue, but we still have a long way to go.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.