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

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...
Huawei Sues US Government Over NDAA Ban on Mar 07, 2019
Chinese telecom giant Huawei is suing the US government over the NDAA ban, arguing that key provisions in it are unconstitutional.  NDAA Section...
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
A new California bill aimed at improving security for connected devices has been signed into law. The law takes aim especially at passwords on...

Most Recent Industry Reports

19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
Hikvision Admits USA Sales Falling on Apr 22, 2019
Hikvision, in a new Chinese financial filing, has admitted that its USA sales are now falling. Less than a year after the US government passed a...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Arecont Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 22, 2019
Arecont's net negativity remained the same in IPVM's 2019 integrator study, though integrator's feeling became relatively more neutral compared to...
H.265 Usage Statistics on Apr 19, 2019
H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has...
ACRE Acquires RS2, Explains Acquisition Strategy on Apr 19, 2019
ACRE continues to buy, now acquiring RS2, just 5 months after buying Open Options. One is a small access control manufacturer from Texas, the...
Access Control Course Spring 2019 - Last Chance on Apr 19, 2019
 Register for the Spring 2019 Access Control Course----Closed IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course in the industry. Unlike...
Riser vs Plenum Cabling Explained on Apr 18, 2019
You could be spending twice as much for cable as you need. The difference between 'plenum' rated cable and 'riser' rated cable is subtle, but the...
Verint Victimized By Ransomware on Apr 18, 2019
Verint, which is best known in the physical security industry for video surveillance but has built a sizeable cybersecurity business as well, was...

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