Can the police put a camera in your bathroom if you are under investigation?

Can the police put a camera in your bathroom if you are under investigation?

Thanks for asking. Technically they could. Certainly, the technology exists, and there’s somebody in every large police department and all of the federal agencies who has the knowledge and ability to install a camera.

 I had the training. In fact, one of the exercises we had to complete successfully to graduate from the (technical surveillance) school was to construct a covert video installation (that the instructors couldn’t detect) using our imaginations and materials provided by the school. With today’s technology, somebody could easily get a camera and microphone anywhere in your home or almost any other place. But…

The legal question is really the important one. You can’t legally put a camera anywhere that a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In a van marked, “Flowers By Irene,” parked across the street from your house? Legal. In a tree overlooking the backyard you’ve constructed a high wooden fence around? Probably legal. Inside your home (and especially in the bathroom or bedroom)? Not legal without a warrant. That’s within your zone of privacy and your expectations about that are reasonable where the first two definitely and probably weren’t.

For an install inside a house (or any other place where you’ve got that privacy expectation, you’d need a warrant, a court order as provided for by state or federal statutes. No warrant/order? Nothing that camera picks up can be used in court without tainting the whole case. It’s probably a violation of federal law (and certainly one if communications are intercepted) Even admitting you’d entered to make the installation would be a burglary under state laws. So a covert install outside? No real problem technically or legally. Inside? Better have an order from the court letting you do it.

Not my deal, but there was a case in the district where some gamblers were operating in a high floor of a condominium building. I think it was the local PD vice detail or it might have been the FBI, but the investigators got a high powered telescope and installed it in a building nearby. They could see directly into the suspects’ apartment and observed enough gambling activity to get a search warrant for the place. The gamblers wanted the evidence thrown out because the telescope had invaded a zone where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court agreed with them. If the vice detectives had been able to see that activity without enhancement, there would have been no problem, because an expectation of privacy in that case wouldn’t be “reasonable.” Shortly afterward in one of my cases, a judge ruled the same way, but except for the telephoto lens on the camera, the circumstances were totally different. Our deal took place in a car in the parking lot of the biggest and busiest shopping mall in the state. And the car didn’t belong to the suspect. The judge eventually overruled himself, finding that while the suspect had been alone in the car and thought his actions were private, anyone walking past (or anyone in a nearby car with a camera) could have seen him. He certainly intended his actions to remain private, but that expectation wasn’t reasonable under the circumstances.

In my experience, judges take these orders very seriously, with concerns about intrusiveness even more so. You want to install a bug in, let’s say, the Bada Bing Club? Public area of the club? The judge is going to feel pretty comfortable about that, assuming that your probable cause is there. In the semi-private breakroom (where murders take place) behind a sign that says, “Employees Only?” The judge will be okay with that if you can articulate why that’s the best spot and demonstrate that you’re going to minimize the intrusion on people other than your target. In the boss’ private office backstage? Where only Tony and Silvio go? You’ll need lots of probable cause for that one. In Tony’s bedroom at home? PC x 10.

Why so restrictive? Because judges want to make sure the rights of uninvolved or innocent parties are specially protected. People like Tony’s wife or some chick he’s bringing over for a quickie when Carmela’s in Paris. And they’ll probably want to know why you think that place (bathroom or bedroom), as opposed to some other, is the one where evidence of illegal activity is likely to be observed. Does Tony routinely ask everybody to accompany him to the bathroom when they want to discuss criminal acts? Articulate that in the affidavit and the judge is going to be more receptive. Just want to get a look at Carmela as she gets into the shower? Your shadow will never darken the door of that judge again. And if it does, the shadow will be missing half an ass.

So, if you find a camera in your bathroom, it’s a safe bet some criminal put it there, not the cops.

Thanks to The Simpsons for the florist truck reference.

The US Supreme Court rule oh no, no exemption or exception to hidden/seen cameras in any restroom for any reasons

Ohio in 03 tried to side step that law and got hosed by the public and SCOTUS

When SCOTUS speaks and makes a ruling you better not side step them

Yes, as long as it can be justified. In England & Wales the justification for intrusive surveillance has to satisfy several tests.

Is it proportionate?

Is it necessary?

Does it fit the serious crime criteria? (One or more of; Serious assault, more than one person involved, high financial gain or a person over 21 could go to prison for 3+ years on first conviction)

It would have to be a high level of necessity and proportionality to put cameras or audio devices into a bathroom, but it is not forbidden in law.

Can hidden security cameras be put in a bathroom or shower if the person is under investigation?

Is it illegal to put cameras in bathrooms?

Does police have the rights to put cameras in your house without permission?

That would depend on the SURVEILLANCE Warrant.

In general a camera in a Bathroom is ILLEGAL, but since the Police do not follow the laws, the way the public MUST, if they can show enough proof to a Judge to allow this invasion of privacy they could get video, now before allowing the public to view the footage they would have to EDIT the video to put those blurs on the private areas for decency.

...

Should police be required to wear body cameras?

My view on cameras

Three people are standing on different street corners at the same intersection and witness a car crash. When you interview the witnesses, each will tell a different story of what happened. None of the people are intentionally lying. It’s just what happened from their perspective.

Camera footage isn’t perfect but it is much more reliable than eyewitness recollection.

Before the days of cell phone and body cameras, I would tell my officers at lineup “always act like you are being video recorded, because one day you will be”.

www.akemog.com.ng
Security Company in Nigeria 
0802 709 1490

The other example I would use is “Act as if the chief of

If they have a warrant that covers such surveillance they can, and it’s most likely going to be allowed in court, albeit with little blurry patches covering your naughty bits!

If somebody's private CCTV records a crime committed in a public place, can they be forced to show the recording to the police?

Yes. Either by search warrant or subpoena. We had a jackass convenience store owner who refused to let us see a surveillance tape of a crime (uttering a forged check) that happened in his store. It was after midnight, and I told him we’d get a subpoena for it as soon as the courthouse opened. He said he would come to the store first thing in the morning and erase the tape before the courthouse opened. (We were talking on the phone. He lived some 20 miles from the store). We woke up the judge to issue a search warrant. When we got back to the store with the warrant, we learned that the surveill