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

Author: 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 ****

*** ******** ******* **** **** ***** *** ** * *** on *** ********. *** ********* *** *** ****** ***** *** common ***** ** *** ***********, *** **** **** ******’* *****. Neighbors **** “******* *** ********* ******* **** **** ***** ******* activities **** ***** *******,” ********* ** ***** *********. *** ***** Ranch *****’* *********** ** ******** ******, ********** *** ********* ***** a ********* ******* ***** ***** *** ********* ***** **** **** to * ********** *********.

** * ****-**** ******* ** **** **, ****, *** ******* agreed **** *****’* ****** ***** ** “************ ********** *** ******** so **** ** ***** **** *** ***** **** ******* ** [Toler's] ******** *** ****** **** *** ** *** *********' ********* [sic]." *** ********* **** *** ** **** ** *** *** problem.

* ***** *****, ********* *** ***** *** *** ***** *** steps ** ****** *** ******. ******** ******* ******** *** ***** photos **** ********* ***** ** *** ****** ******* ********* ** it.

*****, *******, *** **** *** ****** ** ******** *** ******’* field ** ****. ** ******** *** ***** **** * ******* from *** ***** **********, ***** ********, ***. ********** ********* **** on *** ****** ** “******* *** ****** ****** ******* ** south **** ****** ** ********. ********** ******** ** ****** ****** from ***°—***° *********** *** **** ** *** *****-****** ******** ****."

******* ****, *** ***** ***** **** *** ************ *** *** constitute “*********” *** **** ***** *** ******** *** ***** ** the **********. ** *** ******* ** *** ********’* ****.

Why *** ** ****?

***** ***** *** ****** ** ** ****’* ******* ** *** neighbors *******, *** *** ***** ***** ********** ** ******** *** settlement ** *** ********* *** ***** *******. *** ********** **** the ******’* ***** ** **** *** ** ** **********,***** *** ** ** ********. **'* ************ *** **** ********* the ****** ***** **** **** ** ******** *** ***** ** view.

** ******** ****, ** ***** * ****** ** ********** **** testimony **** *** **********. *** ********** **** ***** *** ********* a ******, *** ** **** *** **** **** *** ****** on * **** ****, *** **** ******* ******* * ****** would ********* **** *** ********* *******. *** ********** ********* **** instead **** **** *** **** ** ***** *** ***** ** view ** *** ******. **’* *** ***** ******* *** ********** knew *** **** ** *** ***** *** **** ** * court **********, *** ****’* ******** ********* **** ****** **** **** disclosed.

********* ******* ****** ************ “**** ** *** ***** ** *** face ** *** ********** **** *** ****** *** ** ** both ************ ********** *** ********.”

***** **** **** *** ****** ********** *** *** ** **** in *** ****** "***** ** *** ***** *******." *** ***** attorney’s **** ***** *** ******* ** ***: $**,***.

Comments (16)

Toler failed to follow the agreement. It is his reponsibility to properly interpret and apply the requirements.

He is, however, free to sue his integrator and see where that goes.

<BAM!>

Next case....

Do you think the integrator is at fault? I don't see how an integrator/installer/electrician, etc. is responsible for ensuring a technical task meets a court agreement.

As an excercise of speculation, which is all we can do since we don't know specific details, it's really up to a jury to speculate on how liable the integrator may be, which in a civil suit is subjective and not easily defined in wrtitten law. Did toler tell his integrator he just needed the PTZ restricted and the integrator did what he was supposed to do? If so, I can't see a lot of liability in that. But if he informed the integrtaor of the details of the agreement, and the integrator said something like "don't worry about shielding, we'll do this instead and it will be enough", well one could argue that then the integrator took on a certain amount of reponsinbility to ensure compliance and is reponsible to some extent, if maybe at least a refund of what Toler paid him, and in civil court you don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I would have taken the PTZ down. Change it for a fixed zoom camera. Problem solved.

I guess that if it's just programming that doesn't allow the camera to move past a certain point, then why not just change the programming when you feel like peeping into your neighbors' windows? It's not like there's a record of programming changes in the PTZ, after all.

Agree. To up level, though, why is having a PTZ against the law? :)

Presumably, this is against some rule in the homeowner's association? yes/no? Anyone know if this is common?

I can't speak for that jurisdiction, but here in Quebec, because of privacy laws, there are restrictions on direct views relative to the dividing line between two properties.

Now, this applies specifically to clear glass windows and doors, but I'm sure you could argue that a PTZ shouldn't be installed in a way that it gives you a direct view onto a neighbor's property, and the fact there's zoom capability would probably make it so that it would have to be even further away, and possibly physically shielded from view altogether.

Note: 1,5 meters is approximately 5 feet.

Is there any jurisprudence about pointing telescopes or binoculars at a neighbor's private property in California?

That would probably apply to this case as well.

From the judgement:

The pole now stands as a lone piece of wood in the cold

It sounds as if the PTZ was was installed at the top of a piece of 4"x4" out in the open? Is that recommennded?

Would the autofocus work at all in adverse weather condition, with or without the shield installed?

Can this camera see anywhere where a person on the street would not be able to see?

We install cameras all over the place, with the theory that if people want privacy from a camera, then they should design privacy from passerby.

Maybe the camera was installed in a way that made it a syping eye, but then what about when the local authorities install cameras atop high poles?

"What about when the local authorities install cameras atop high poles?"

Frequently, privacy zones are programmed on the camera to block out viewing into windows / private areas.

"Frequently".

Interesting.

How frequent is it? 70% of public surveilance cases in USA, for example?

Having looked again, this section of California's Civil Code would probably apply to this particular case:

Physical & Constructive Invasions of Privacy - California Civil Code section 1708.8

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

Now the question is, should the installer have been aware of this, informed his client, and obtained proof he did in writing when the PTZ was first installed, as Marty Major pointed out in another thread? And did he?

next time we can be blindfolded when we go to the streets to prevent watching into one others backyard...

No need to do that.

As long as you're not walking around with a PTZ at the top of a pole strapped to a helmet enabling you to peer over your neigbours' six foot or higher fences and cedar hedges, you should be fine. ;)

But I'm 6'4". I see over most fences quite easily!

If that's the case, don't walk around with a PTZ strapped to your forehead. Or binoculars glued to your eyes. Otherwise, you could be at risk. ;)

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Legal

Austria’s First GDPR Fine Is For Video Surveillance on Jan 29, 2019
Should EU businesses be concerned if police see a business' surveillance cameras filming public areas? This is what happened with Austria’s first...
ASCMA / Moni Problems Deepen, Lenders Terminate Support Agreement on Dec 28, 2018
Ascent Capital Group, aka ASCMA, currently branded Brinks Home Security, formerly known as Moni and Monitronics faces a troubling end to a rocky...
Sublethal Camera Gun Examined on Dec 06, 2018
Sublethal is a South African company that manufactures a remotely-controlled, camera-enabled gun called the Boomslang, which is Afrikaans for tree...
UK ICO Denies IPVM GDPR Complaint Against IFSEC, Decides Each Exhibitor Responsible on Dec 06, 2018
The UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has denied IPVM's complaint against IFSEC for misuse of facial recognition. Each Exhibitor...
ADT Wins Fire Death Suit But Faces Appeal on Dec 05, 2018
ADT/Protection 1 has won a wrongful death court case in which it was sued by the estate of a deceased customer. However, the attorney for the...
French Government Threatens School with $1.7M Fine For “Excessive Video Surveillance” on Nov 14, 2018
The French government has notified a high-profile Paris coding academy that it risks a fine of up to 1.5 million euros (about $1.7m) if it...
Former Manufacturer Axcess Sues Avigilon, Genetec, Others for Patent Infringement on Oct 24, 2018
Axcess International, Inc. has sued Avigilon, Genetec and ACTi, among others for patent infringement. Who are they and what are their complaints...
Default Passwords Outlawed in California, US To Follow on Oct 09, 2018
UPDATES A new California bill aimed at improving security for connected devices has been signed into law. The law takes aim especially at...
Ascent / MONI Faces Lender Lawsuit and Debt Crisis on Sep 13, 2018
ASCMA, aka Ascent, aka Brinks Home Security, aka MONI, aka Monitronics is being sued by a group of their lenders who allege: As of June 30,...
France Political Scandal Reveals Video Surveillance Problems on Aug 22, 2018
In what French media describes as "the most damaging crisis yet for" French President Macron, a political scandal has revealed major gaps in the...

Most Recent Industry Reports

From The Basement To Buried Behind Chinatown: ISC West Emerging Technology Zone on Feb 22, 2019
What does ISC West think about 'Emerging Technology'? Well, last year, they put those companies in the basement. This year, they moved them up to...
Private School IT Manager Surveillance Interview on Feb 22, 2019
This IT manager describes himself as the "oft-maligned IT person" whose "opinions may not always be appreciated by the integrator crowd." But he is...
Outdoor Camera Mounting Hardware Guide on Feb 21, 2019
Mounting cameras outdoors can be challenging, requiring understanding different types of equipment and methods. In this guide, we teach this...
HID Favorability Results 2019 on Feb 21, 2019
HID favorability results were strong, in the 2019 IPVM integrator study of 200+ integrators, with a net +62% and low negativity as the table below...
First US State, Vermont, Bans Dahua and Hikvision on Feb 21, 2019
The first US state, Vermont, has issued a ban on a number of Chinese and Russian manufacturers including the world's 2 largest video surveillance...
ADI 'SAVE BIG' On FLIR And Hikvision Examined on Feb 20, 2019
One is a major US defense supplier. The other is owned by the Chinese government. But you can "SAVE BIG" on both at ADI. In this note, we...
BluB0x Company Profile on Feb 20, 2019
BluB0x has doubled in revenue every year since its founding in 2013, according to CEO Patrick Barry. We originally reported on them in 2015. At the...
Massive Leak Of Chinese VMS Provider Exposes Xinjiang Surveillance on Feb 20, 2019
A subsidiary of China’s claimed largest VMS provider is tracking the precise location and ethnicity of millions in China’s Xinjiang region,...
Security Installation Tools Guide - 22 Tools Listed on Feb 19, 2019
In this guide, we cover 22 tools that security installers frequently use. This is one part of our upcoming Video Surveillance...
Sales Cuts At Rasilient on Feb 19, 2019
Over the past 2 years, video surveillance storage specialist Rasilient has expanded its workforce significantly, aiming to build its own branded...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact