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

Faulty Hikvision Cali Colombia Fever Camera Implementation on Jul 20, 2020
The mayor of one of Colombia's largest cities has promoted a faulty Hikvision...
US Passes Uyghur Human Rights Law Condemning Mass Surveillance on Jun 18, 2020
The US government has passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020,...
Junk Debt Laden Convergint Facing Coronavirus Crisis on Apr 08, 2020
Convergint has $1+ billion in junk debt putting significant pressure on the...
Video Surveillance Business 101 on Mar 30, 2020
This report explains the fundamental elements of the video surveillance...
The US Fight Over Facial Recognition Explained on Jul 08, 2020
The controversy around facial recognition has grown significantly in 2020,...
TVT / InVid Facial Recognition Tested on Mar 25, 2020
Facial recognition is frequently sold for thousands of dollars per channel...
Uniview Deep Learning Camera Tested on Jul 14, 2020
Uniview's intrusion analytics have performed poorly in our shootouts. Now,...
Verkada Falsely Claims "First Native Cloud-based Access Control and Video Security Solution" on Jun 18, 2020
Verkada's false claims continue, this time to be the first native cloud-based...
YCombinator AI Startup Visual One Tested on Apr 02, 2020
Startup Visual One, backed by Silicon Valley's powerful Y Combinator, aims to...
Startup Solink $17 Million USD Fund Raise Expands To Mass Market on Jun 24, 2020
Solink has raised ~$17 million USD, a sizeable round for the company that...
Coronavirus Shuts Down ADT Door Knockers on Mar 26, 2020
Coronavirus has another victim - this time, alarm giant ADT has stopped all...
Anixter Runs Fake Coronavirus Marketing Using Shutterstock Watermarked Images on Jul 24, 2020
Coronavirus faked marketing is regrettably commonplace right now but Anixter...
Help Security End Users Facing Coronavirus Improve Remote Access on Mar 24, 2020
Many end-users and integrators are struggling with the impact of coronavirus...
Coronavirus Hits Manufacturers, Standing Now, Worse To Come on Apr 06, 2020
Coronavirus is hitting security manufacturers, though overall modestly for...
PRC Warns Against China Video Surveillance Hacks, Hikvision Targeted on Feb 14, 2020
Hackers are targeting China video surveillance manufacturers and systems,...

Recent Reports

Huawei HiSilicon Shortage Impacts Surveillance Manufacturers on Aug 14, 2020
Huawei acknowledged problems and challenges for its HiSilicon chip business,...
Final Rule Does Not Expand Hikvision Dahua Blacklist on Aug 14, 2020
The final White House rule (200.216) has been added and contrary to the...
Taiwan Lilin NDAA Compliant Cameras Tested on Aug 13, 2020
Taiwan-based manufacturer Lilin is taking direct aim at Dahua and Hikvision...
White House Expands Dahua Hikvision Blacklist To Federal Funding [Final Rule Reverses] on Aug 13, 2020
The White House is expanding the NDAA to blacklist anyone who "uses" banned...
Actual Coronavirus Testing Options Examined on Aug 13, 2020
Fever cameras have emerged as an indirect and flawed way to test for...
Video Analytics Online Show September 2020 Opened - Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, BriefCam, Genetec, Milestone + 30 More on Aug 12, 2020
IPVM's sixth online show will feature 35+ Video Analytics companies...
The German Company Powering Many China Temperature Tablets (Heimann) on Aug 12, 2020
Many fever tablet suppliers market German-made Heimann thermal sensors while...
Salesforce Drops Dahua and Hikvision on Aug 12, 2020
Salesforce has dropped Dahua and Hikvision as customers, forcing the two mega...
Access Control Course Fall 2020 - Register Now on Aug 12, 2020
IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course in the industry....
Genetec CEO Declares "We Don't Negotiate Payment With Patent Trolls" on Aug 11, 2020
Are patent trolls like terrorists? Genetec's CEO is coming out strongly...
Hanwha AI Analytics Camera Tested on Aug 11, 2020
Hanwha has released their Wisenet P AI camera, adding person and vehicle...
Alabama Schools Million Dollar Hikvision Fever Camera Deal on Aug 11, 2020
The Baldwin County, Alabama public schools purchased a $1 million, 144-camera...
Dahua Taunts Australian Government, Continues To Sell Illegal Fever Cameras on Aug 10, 2020
Dahua is effectively taunting the Australian government by continuing to sell...
HID Releases VertX Replacement Aero on Aug 10, 2020
HID is replacing two established and broadly supported types of access...
NDAA Compliant Video Surveillance Whitelist on Aug 10, 2020
This report aggregates video surveillance products that manufacturers have...