Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr
They got a warrant. The "problem" was some taped customers came and got legal massages. That was somehow a violation of the warrant according to the judge.
To me, that is a "violation" of the innocent's rights. Not the guilty. The innocent would have reason for complaint, but the guilty shouldn't be able to take advantage of that.
If a home security camera happens to capture a man kidnapping a child on the street, is that video inadmissable in court because it also taped drivers going about their everyday business?
|
It is a tricky situation. Doing some reading, in a previous case, the videos were thrown out because the police kept watching instances when it was clear that a simple massage was occurring. In this case officers were instructed to minimize screens as soon as they deemed that there was nothing illegal happening. Apparently this judge did not think that was enough. It may well get appealed by the prosecutor, so it is not yet a done deal.
It is not the same as a home security camera because people in public areas have no expectation of privacy. I for one am not willing to abandon my rights to privacy easily, so I understand that some limits need to be in place. I do not want to be watched/taped getting a massage or spending the night in a hotel on the excuse of "if you aren't doing anything illegal it should be OK."