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

Remove Dahua and Hikvision Gov Installs Required By US House Bill Ban on Jun 06, 2018
The final released US House Bill HR 5515 verifies that it not only prohibits the purchasing of Dahua and Hikvision products, it requires removing...
Panasonic Sells Security Camera Patents To Troll on Jun 04, 2018
In a highly atypical move, Panasonic has sold off nearly 100 security camera patents to one of the most well-known patent trolls. This comes just...
Amazon's "Dangerous New Face Recognition Technology" Says ACLU on May 23, 2018
The ACLU has caused a stir, with a new report Amazon Teams Up With Law Enforcement to Deploy Dangerous New Face Recognition Technology,...
GDPR For Video Surveillance Guide on Apr 12, 2018
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force on May 25, but there is much confusion and no clear guidelines on...
Audio Usage In Video Surveillance Statistics on Mar 28, 2018
Audio is more widely available and easier to use than ever, with many IP cameras building audio in and often making integration as simple as...
Axis Wins, Arecont Cancels Multi-Imager Patent on Feb 26, 2018
16 months after Arecont publicly threatened Axis and 7 months after Axis took Arecont to patent 'court', Axis has won, with Arecont canceling all...
The Interceptor Aims To Fix Vulnerability In Millions of Alarm Systems on Jan 08, 2018
Security executive Jeffery Zwirn claims a 'catastrophic' flaw exists in 'millions of alarm systems', and dealers could be liable if not fixed. The...
Chinese Government Attacks Western Reports on Jan 03, 2018
The Chinese government is angry at the BBC and WSJ's reporting on Chinese video surveillance (see BBC Features Dahua and WSJ Investigates China's...
Axis and Arecont Legal Conflict Over Multi-Imager Cameras on Aug 17, 2017
Arecont threatened Axis. Axis has responded by moving to invalidate an Arecont patent. It is an important contest. Multi-imagers are Arecont's...
IP Camera Specification / RFP Guide 2017 on Aug 14, 2017
RFPs are hard. Do them 'right' and it takes a lot of knowledge and time. Do them 'wrong' and you can be (a) unwittingly locked into a specific...

Most Recent Industry Reports

July 2018 IP Networking Course on Jun 16, 2018
The last chance to save $50 on registration is this Thursday, June 21st. Register now and save. This is the only networking course designed...
The Dumb Ones: PSA's Bozeman On Cybersecurity on Jun 15, 2018
The smart ones are the hundred people who flew to Denver and spent $500+ on a 1.5-day conference featuring Dahua as a 'cyber responsible partner',...
Amazon Ring Launches $10 Monthly Professional Alarm Monitoring on Jun 15, 2018
Amazon's Ring has announced an alarm system with 24/7 professional alarm monitoring for $10 per month, a fraction of the $30+ per month traditional...
Axis Releases First New Access Controller In 5 Years (A1601) on Jun 15, 2018
It has been 5 years since Axis 2013 entry in the physical access control market, with the A1001 (IPVM test). Now, Axis has released its second...
Hikvision 12MP Fisheye Camera Tested (DS-2CD63C2F-IV) on Jun 14, 2018
Hikvision's DS-2CD63C2F-IV is their flagship panoramic camera, with a 12MP imager, 15m integrated IR, smart codec, and more. We tested the 63C2 in...
Four Major Outdoor Camera Install Problems on Jun 14, 2018
Over 140 integrators told us the top four camera installation mistakes that lead to unexpected problems and failures. Their comments often...
Security Sales Course Summer 2018 on Jun 14, 2018
Based on member's interest, IPVM is offering a security sales course this summer. Register Now - IPVM Security Sales Course Summer...
China Public Video Surveillance Guide: From Skynet to Sharp Eyes on Jun 14, 2018
China is expanding its video surveillance network to achieve “100%” nationwide coverage by 2020, including facial recognition capabilities and a...
IPVM For PR / Marketing People on Jun 13, 2018
This post helps PR and Marketing people understand and productively work with IPVM (as much as possible given our independent, often critical,...
Avigilon H4 Multi-Sensor Adds 32MP, H.265, Analytics on Jun 13, 2018
Avigilon has announced the H4 Multisensor, the successor to their repositionable multi imager line, adding features like H.265, integrated IR,...

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