Man to Pay $20,000 Legal Fees For Inappropriate Surveillance Camera

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Feb 07, 2014

This man has been court ordered to pay $20,000 in legal fees over inappropriate surveillance camera use. Was it his fault? Or was it bad advice from the integrator who assisted him? Or is this simply a case of the courts being unreasonable?

In this note, we examine a court case where a regular person with a camera on his house resulted in years of legal fighting and a sizeable financial fee.

The Case

The problems started when Joel Toler put up a PTZ on his property. His neighbors say the camera could see common areas of his subdivision, but also into people’s homes. Neighbors were “annoyed and disturbed because they felt their private activities were being watched,” according to court documents. The Spurs Ranch Owner’s Association in American Canyon, California and neighbors filed a complaint against Toler which was dismissed after they came to a settlement agreement.

In a nine-hour meeting on June 22, 2009, the parties agreed that Toler’s camera would be “mechanically restricted and shielded so that it views only the front gate portion of [Toler's] property and cannot view any of the neighbors' residence [sic]." The agreement gave him 30 days to fix the problem.

A month later, neighbors say Toler had not taken any steps to shield the camera. Opposing lawyers provided the court photos from different dates of the camera without shielding on it.

Toler, however, had made and effort to restrict the camera’s field of view. He provided the court with a receipt from his local integrator, Super Electric, Inc. describing performed work on the camera as “inspect and adjust camera located at south east corner of property. Restricted movement of camera travel from 360°—270° eliminating the view of the Toler-Dostal property line."

Despite that, the court ruled that the modification did not constitute “shielding” and that Toler had breached the terms of the settlement. He was ordered to pay attorney’s fees.

Why Did He Lose?

Toler fixed the camera so it wasn’t looking at his neighbors anymore, but the court still determined he breached the settlement by not following its exact wording. The settlement said the camera’s field of view was to be restricted, and it was to be shielded. It's questionable how much shielding the camera would have done to restrict the field of view.

In February 2010, he filed a motion to reconsider with testimony from his integrator. The integrator said Toler had requested a shield, but he told him that with the camera on a high pole, the wind hitting against a shield would interfere with its autofocus feature. The integrator suggested that instead they only use pins to limit the field of view of the camera. It’s not clear whether the integrator knew the work he was doing was part of a court settlement, but that’s probably something that should have been disclosed.

Oppposing lawyers argued successfully “that it was clear on the face of the settlement that the camera had to be both mechanically restricted and shielded.”

Toler took down the camera altogether and now it sits in his garage "where it now views nothing." The final attorney’s fees Toler was ordered to pay: $20,000.

Comments (16) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

France Declares School Facial Recognition Illegal Due to GDPR on Oct 31, 2019
France is the latest European country to effectively prohibit facial recognition as a school access control solution, even with the consent of...
UK Facewatch GDPR Compliance Questioned on Aug 27, 2019
Even as the GDPR strictly regulates biometrics, a UK company called Facewatch is selling anti-shoplifter facial recognition systems to hundreds of...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
NJ Law Requires Apprenticeship For Public Works Integrators on May 24, 2019
Few integrators do a formal apprenticeship program. However, now a NJ law is requiring any integrator on public works projects (such as state...
Bank Security Manager Interview on May 15, 2019
Bank security contends with many significant threats - from fraudsters to robbers and more. In this interview, IPVM spoke with bank security...
ADT's Top Dealer "The Defenders" Sued 20+ Times on May 07, 2019
ADT's largest authorized dealer, The Defenders, has been sued more than 20 times since 2012, IPVM has verified through analyzing legal...
Restaurant Security Manager Interview on May 06, 2019
Wright’s Gourmet House in Tampa, Florida has been around for over 50 years. During most of that time, there were no security measures in place. Now...
UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...
Casino Security Consultant Carl Lindgren Interview on Mar 26, 2019
For more than 20 years, Carl Lindgren worked as a casino surveillance pro, while being active (and sometimes outspoken) on various online video...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Wyze Raises $10 Million And Seeks Services Expansion on May 27, 2020
Wyze has raised $10 million, the company's first disclosed raise since the $20 million announced at the beginning of 2019. Inside this note,...
Startup Videoloft Presents Cloud Storage on May 27, 2020
Videoloft presented offsite cloud storage at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from Videoloft including IPVM...
Directory of 250+ Fever Camera News Reports Globally on May 27, 2020
This global directory tracks 250+ articles about thermal cameras used to detect fevers in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Articles are...
Integrators Rising Against Coronavirus on May 27, 2020
IPVM integrator statistics make it clear - Coronavirus's impact on business is lessening and many are anticipating even better news in weeks...
Netposa Stock Surges 46% After US Human Rights Abuse Sanctions on May 27, 2020
Last Friday, the US government announced it would sanction PRC video management provider NetPosa for being "complicit in human rights violations...
LILIN Presents NDAA-Compliant P2 Cameras on May 26, 2020
Merit LILIN presented its NDAA-compliant P2 camera series at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
ZKTeco Body Temperature and Mask Detection Reader Tested on May 26, 2020
While dedicated fever cameras emerged first, now tablet/kiosk fever detectors are ramping up. China's ZKTeco has been aggressively promoting such...
IDIS Presents 12MP IR Panoramic Fisheye on May 26, 2020
IDIS presented its 12MP IR panoramic fisheye camera at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from...
FDA Defines Correct Operation of "Fever Cameras" on May 26, 2020
The US FDA has now defined the correct operation of "Thermal Imaging Systems", colloquially known as "fever cameras". Many in video...
OnSSI Founders Return, Start Corsight on May 25, 2020
The OnSSI founders are back, less than 2 years after selling OnSSI to Qognify, they have returned to Corsight, a spin-out of an Israeli AI...