Is it legal to video someone without their knowledge?

[divgradcurl]

And I think the Supreme Court case I cited (10 years later regarding the addition of the language) might disagree with YOUR pronouncement

BB, a ruling by the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin (State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86, 236 Wis.2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 90, 613 N.W.2d 90, 2000 WI 71 (Wis. 06/28/2000)) is both

a) not binding precedent in any state other than WI (and that includes OR), and

b) does not trump a U.S. Supreme Court case (Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990)), 10 years old or not.

I hate to disagree with you here BB, but you are just plain wrong on this one -- a person has an expectation of privacy in many venues, not just one's own home.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Furthermore:

The case of Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) considered a wiretap on a public telephone booth. The principal holding in this case was that the police had violated the defendant's privacy upon which he justifiably relied and the police made an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz, 389 U.S. at 361, a two-part test was proposed: (1) Did the person have an actual expectation of privacy in the communication? and (2) Does society recognize this expectation as reasonable? The U.S. Supreme Court accepted this two-part test in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) and restated their acceptance again in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986). While Katz is a search and seizure case in criminal law, the reasonable expectation test has been applied in civil contexts.

You also didn't carry the argument to its conclusion.

In BENJAMIN PATEL, Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKLATEX;

The Court in previous holdings has indicated that an expectation of privacy exists when a guest stays overnight in the home of another. Minnesota v. Olsen, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). However, the Court is more reluctant to hold that a person with no previous connection to the premises, and who is briefly on the premises for business purposes, has an expectation of privacy. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

As for a guest's legal standing, the Supreme Court has deemed guests to have apparent authority to consent to the search of their hosts’ home, but has not recognized their right to have a reasonable expectation of privacy within that home.

Reading Gregory J. Wartman's THIS REASONABLE?: THE SUPREME COURT’S INCONSISTENTTREATMENT OF HOUSE GUESTS will be a very good first step in this discussion. It can be found here:
http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/volumes/vol62i2/Wartman-%20387%20R.pdf#search='U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20expectation%20of%20privacy%20in%20another's%20home'

 

[divgradcurl]

Why the cases on wiretapping? They are not really relevant here. Further the Katz holding says that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a phonebooth -- which again is more expansive than one's own home.

The Court in previous holdings has indicated that an expectation of privacy exists when a guest stays overnight in the home of another. Minnesota v. Olsen, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). However, the Court is more reluctant to hold that a person with no previous connection to the premises, and who is briefly on the premises for business purposes, has an expectation of privacy. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Was the OP at the boyfriend's house for "business purposes?"

Further, Minnesota v. Carter states "Thus, an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not."

Anyway, we are veering off topic here. These cases all deal with 4th amendment search and siezure, which may or may not apply to situations where there is no search and siezure. In the OP's case, and related to the OR statute, the party violating the OP's privacy is NOT a government official but rather a private individual -- therefore the 4th ammendment defintions of privacy don't come into play. Instead, you use the common-law privacy rules, which allow for a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I apologize to the OP and others for veering down the 4th ammendment road.

However, the points I made earlier I still cling to: what the boyfriend did is against the law in OR, there are also civil actions that could arise for invasion of privacy, and that the OP should talk to the police and/or an OR lawyer to find out what her options are.

 

[OSI]

I apologize to the OP and others for veering down the 4th ammendment road.

However, the points I made earlier I still cling to: what the boyfriend did is against the law in OR, there are also civil actions that could arise for invasion of privacy, and that the OP should talk to the police and/or an OR lawyer to find out what her options are.

Maybe it's just because I'm new to law forums or maybe I just missed something. What/who is the OP?

Thanks to both of you for all the info. Not only for myself, but for others too. I'm sure I'm not the only person that has faced this kind of crap with the way the internet seems to be.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Why the cases on wiretapping? They are not really relevant here. Further the Katz holding says that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a phonebooth -- which again is more expansive than one's own home.



Was the OP at the boyfriend's house for "business purposes?"

Further, Minnesota v. Carter states "Thus, an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not."

Anyway, we are veering off topic here. These cases all deal with 4th amendment search and siezure, which may or may not apply to situations where there is no search and siezure. In the OP's case, and related to the OR statute, the party violating the OP's privacy is NOT a government official but rather a private individual -- therefore the 4th ammendment defintions of privacy don't come into play. Instead, you use the common-law privacy rules, which allow for a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I apologize to the OP and others for veering down the 4th ammendment road.

However, the points I made earlier I still cling to: what the boyfriend did is against the law in OR, there are also civil actions that could arise for invasion of privacy, and that the OP should talk to the police and/or an OR lawyer to find out what her options are.

And I will continue to disagree, simply on the basis that the owner of the home is (also) not the government and not required to offer the protection of the 4th Amendment. In this case, the OP (Original Poster) falls under the Oregon Statute I posted previously.

 

[divgradcurl]

And I will continue to disagree, simply on the basis that the owner of the home is (also) not the government and not required to offer the protection of the 4th Amendment. In this case, the OP (Original Poster) falls under the Oregon Statute I posted previously.

And once again, the statute YOU posted deals with wiretapping and audio communications, whereas the statute I posted deals with videotape and photographs -- now which one do you think is more applicable in this case?

In your example, the minute somebody steps outside of their own home (or I guess even stands next to a window) they lose all rights of privacy, and that's just not the way it is. An expectation of privacy is not equivalent to the 4th ammendment, although they do overlapin certain areas -- but this case is not one of them.

 

[Rhubarb297]

And the problem with citing that particular statute is that a person, outside of their own home, has no expectation of privacy.

I would suggest that a thorough reading of State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86, 236 Wis.2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 90, 613 N.W.2d 90, 2000 WI 71 (Wis. 06/28/2000) be initiated for background on similar statutes and the results.


The statue on its face is flawed and overbroad and cannot withstand judicial review.

A Wisconsin state court decision has absolutely no bearing on Oregon law. At best it could only be very, very mild persuasive precedent that would be used only if there weren't any statutes or case law on point.

Clearly in this case there is. This is a no brainer. There is an Oregon statute appears clearly on point. There is no reason to think it is "flawed or overbroad." There are similiar laws in other states.

And let's apply a little common sense to this. Do you really think it would be legal to lure women to your your home, secretely videotape them in a sexual act and show and sell those tapes to others? Of course not.

 

[Rhubarb297]

And once again, the statute YOU posted deals with wiretapping and audio communications, whereas the statute I posted deals with videotape and photographs -- now which one do you think is more applicable in this case?

Of course yours. BB just doesn't want to admit when he's clearly wrong.

 

[Rhubarb297]

And I will continue to disagree, simply on the basis that the owner of the home is (also) not the government and not required to offer the protection of the 4th Amendment. In this case, the OP (Original Poster) falls under the Oregon Statute I posted previously.

Of course the 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Clause has nothing to do with it. It requires state action to apply, which you don't have.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Oregon's right to adopt a statute prohibiting secret videotaping.

 

[Rhubarb297]

BB, a ruling by the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin (State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86, 236 Wis.2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 90, 613 N.W.2d 90, 2000 WI 71 (Wis. 06/28/2000)) is both

a) not binding precedent in any state other than WI (and that includes OR), and

b) does not trump a U.S. Supreme Court case (Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990)), 10 years old or not.

I hate to disagree with you here BB, but you are just plain wrong on this one -- a person has an expectation of privacy in many venues, not just one's own home.

I totally agree with you, except for your last phrase. The protection against videotaping (and protection of privacy) derives from the Oregon statute, not from some "expectation of privacy." It appears you may be mixing up principles of the 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure Clause) with a statutory protection set forth by the Oregon legislature. Not all of our privacy rights derive from the Constitution - states are free to pass laws that give people additional privacy protections. Here in this case the Oregon legislature clearly did that.

 

[divgradcurl]

I totally agree with you, except for your last phrase. The protection against videotaping (and protection of privacy) derives from the Oregon statute, not from some "expectation of privacy."

Just for clarification -- I used the term "expectation of privacy" here because the statute itself talks of an "expectation of privacy" -- and, although I haven't read the legislative history for Oregon statutes (or anyone's statutes, for that matter...), I would suspect that they are drawing from a common-law position on "expectation of privacy" which would be more expansive than a constitutional "expectation of privacy" under search-and-siezure laws.

EDIT: It looks like this statute essentially makes a criminal act what would normally be a common-law tort action for invasion of privacy -- that's why I expect that the OR legislature is relying on common-law expectation of privacy and not 4th Amendment stuff. Plus, all that lack of "state action" and other nonsense... /EDIT

But I'm sure my posts were confusing -- I let myself get dragged into a 4th amendment argument, which is really irrelevant in this case...