Surveillance Camera Legal Guidelines
Do you want to know what is going on in your home or business when you are not around?
Before you purchase that Hidden Camera research what is legal where you live using a hidden surveillance camera in your home, office, or in the general public.
Video Surveillance Laws by State
Video surveillance laws differ greatly from state to state. There’s a total lack of federal laws prohibiting video surveillance in public, in the workplace, and elsewhere, sometimes known as CCTV, or closed-circuit television.
Most states allow this surveillance to occur, but there are some small exceptions and some circumstances that require monitoring on a case-by-case basis. Please note that laws change faster than internet site. Please make sure you check on the current laws where you live.
In some states, such as New York, Rhode Island, and California, video cameras are not allowed anywhere where an individual has a reasonable expectation of complete privacy. These locations include but are not limited to:
· Changing rooms
· Hotel rooms
· Any place where a person may get undressed
In Delaware and Connecticut, businesses have to notify their employees and customers both if there are any video cameras on the property that may break any expectations of privacy, such as in a bathroom or changing room.
If there’s a public notice advising the public that video camera is in use and is posted on the property of a business, an individual’s rights to privacy are wholly forfeited and void.
Most of us accept the realities of video surveillance -- despite being somewhat invasive, cameras have a marked and noticeable impact on crime levels.
Generally, people are in favor of using video cameras in locations such as tunnels, stairways, elevators, and parking garages, due to the abnormally high rate of crime that takes place in these locations.
These videos are often used in courts as undeniable evidence.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the only legislation that comes close to addressing a federal stance on these cameras, which is the clause about guarding individuals against unreasonable or unwarranted searches and seizures.
The amendment also requires all search warrants, before they’re deemed legal, to be sanctioned by a court, who must then decide whether or not there is probable cause for issuance of a warrant.
In one Supreme Court case, Justice Potter Stewart ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals and not places. When an individual knowingly exposes information to the public, they are not eligible for Fourth Amendment protections.
Any individual seeking privacy, even in a public area or an area accessible to the public, however, may still be constitutionally guarded against searches and seizures, depending on the state.
The Constitution does not, however, offer the right to privacy from unauthorized videotaping.
States are permitted to pass their own laws pertaining to video surveillance.
Florida passed a law that ties criminal penalties to hidden videotaping of individuals anywhere they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as their bathroom.
The law does not, however, protect individuals in public places, such as the beach.
Video surveillance is a complex topic that continues to evolve. Surveillance in the United States is constantly growing, owed largely to the 9/11 terror attacks.
Entrances and exits to buildings are ideal options for camera placement.
This location is optimal because cameras placed here have a good chance of capturing images of visitor faces and profiles.
Cameras should, by expert recommendation, record the entire door they’re filming, which is about 3 feet wide in most instances.
If a business owner has to choose just one location for a camera, exits are preferred over entrances in a security context because entrances are often distorted by sunlight and/or decor.
In order to best deter crimes, experts agree that placing monitors in plain view of the public is effective.
If criminals see these monitors on a wall, behind a security desk or notice it is otherwise being monitored, there’s far less of a chance that the criminal will attempt to commit a crime for fear of leaving behind evidence in the form of being caught on camera.
Over half of the employers who were surveyed by the American Management Association said that they already utilize the benefits of video monitoring.
Employees, therefore, would do well to understand the legal situation and limitations surrounding videotaping on company property, and they would also do well to familiarize themselves with the rights workers have as far as privacy in the workplace is concerned.
Twenty-four states in total have their own laws pertaining to hidden cameras, and outlaw or restrict the practice in some way.
Thirty-eight states, plus the District of Columbia, permit people to record their conversations, or conversations to which they are a party to, without informing any other parties of their intentions or actions. This law is known as “one-party consent.”
One party consent states that, as long as one party to a conversation chooses to record the interaction, it is legal for them to do so.
Nevada has this statute in effect.
However, the Supreme Court interpreted the law differently -- as an “all-party rule.” Across the country in Alabama, the covert filming of individuals while they were trespassing on private properties was considered unlawful surveillance. This may sound strange to many. It’s considered an aggravated offense to record anyone, in any place, while the individual has an expectation of privacy, without their prior express written consent.
Alabama’s notorious eavesdropping statutes criminalize the use of any devices used to overhear, record, or capture any communications, whether or not the eavesdropper is present, without the express consent of one or more parties engaged in conversation or communication.
In Alaska, it’s a misdemeanor to use any eavesdropping devices to record or hear any conversations without the express consent of one or more parties to a conversation. In New York state, the highest court ruled that these eavesdropping statutes were intended to only prohibit third-party intercepts of any communications, and thus, doesn’t apply to any participants to a conversation.
Arkansas statutes conclude that the interception of any wires, such as cellular or cordless phone conversations, is illegal, unless the recording party is a party to the conversation, or can prove that one of the other parties to the communication gave prior consent.
In Arizona, it is illegal to tape a person without their consent while that person is in a restroom, bathroom, bedroom, locker room, is undressed or engaged in sexual activities unless notices are posted.
In Colorado, it is considered a felony for an individual to record or intercept any telephone conversation or communication that occurred electronically without the express consent of one or more parties.
However, recording any communications from cordless telephones is considered a misdemeanor.
Different states have different laws regarding surveillance. In some states, mere visual recording is not illegal so long as the camera is on your neighbor’s property.
In other states, visual recording is acceptable but any audio recording is not.
And in other states, all forms of recording might face criminal or civil penalties. Generally, any publically viewable areas like backyards are fair game – which is how companies like Google can record their Street View images across the United States.
Join our Mailing List