Justin Bieber and Why Jail Bathroom Surveillance Cameras Are Legal

I don't think jail cells should have a an expectation of privacy. For that matter, especially a holding cell. Who is to say that the individual doesn't have something hidden and missed by a pat-down/search?

Jail/prison is a different category for everything.

Take for example egress codes. Jails don't automatically unlock or let people out during a fire.

However, the video should NOT be available to a public request, possibly with the execption that it is part of an investigation of an incident.

There are two things: expectation of privacy to security officers (police, etc), and expectation of privacy to the public.

Think about an elevator. Let's say you are in an elevator, all alone. And, you tuck in your shirt, ajust yourself, and pick your nose. Do you have an expectation of privacy? I believe that you do have an expectation of privacy from the public. If there are cameras in there, they should be for security use only, not a public view of everyone picking their noses.

We have a lot to discuss and determine for expectation of privacy in a 24/7 video recorded world.

Yes I completely agree with you, it should not be for public viewing. In fact, security related video should never be for public viewing imho.

As for the elevator, it's a public elevator therefore I do not have any expectation of privacy.

In the US, don't you forfeit certain rights when you're arrested? Isn't that the whole purpose of the Miranda Warning, to restate certain Constitutional Rights are still valid?

Considering that people can hide all sorts of weapons 'in' their bodies (including this unforgettable one from my home state *sigh*), I understand monitoring bathroom activities in jail. It's a matter of security, no perversion.

I didn't think anyone had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a cell.

They wouldn't require the divider if there wasn't some expectation to privacy. This is a very typical design for holding cells. I recently worked on a scope that involved a holding cell where the metal panel installed did not provide for adequate privacy. The federal agency involved took this as a concern and required the contractor to fix.

BTW: it made for some interesting video having the CCTV integrator stand and sit in differenct positions in the room to validate the new panel provided adequate coverage. :)

I'd like to see where the Pyallup case goes, It may depend on what type of room/facility the camera is in, but if I was a judge I would lean towards this violates privacy.

The federal standards require a divider on the locations with CCTV and toilets, but these are typical holding areas I deal with and not hardened prison areas that may require additional scrutiny (after the person has been convicted). Again release of the video should be highly controlled.

You people are removing all the entertainment value out of being incarcerated (especially for the correctional officers). Somehow I don't connect a naked Justin Beiber in a correctional institution with the need for a toilet.

Simply put, there ain't no reasonable expectation of jailhouse privacy. Expectation, maybe. Reasonable? No.

The poll becomes challenging because it's not exactly clear what is meant by the words "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I second (or third or tenth) the notion that a person in detention has a resonable expectation that they are under observation at all times.

Likewise, I concur that a person using a rest room has a reasonable expectation that these activities will not be available for public consumption.

In a typical row of "public" urinals, men do not have a reasonable expectation that nobody nearby could possibly observe them doing their business, but that doesn't make it reasonable for these activities to be (for example) broadcast on CNN.

Well... thanks Marty, I never knew a "man code" existed!

When in prison you have no reasonable expectation of privacy but non of the video should be realeased to the public.