Justin Bieber and Why Jail Bathroom Surveillance Cameras Are Legal

By IPVM Team, Published Mar 11, 2014, 12:00am EDT (Info+)

Justin Bieber urinating in a jail cell recently became international news, evidently for its entertainment value, despite the boring video clip released following a public records request:

**** ********** *** *** ****** *** surveillance ******* ** *** ********. ** not ********* **** * ********** *********** ** ******* [link ** ****** *********]?

** ****** ** *** ***** ***** Police ********** ***** *** *** ******* are ***** *** ***** *** *** the ****** ********** **** **** *** exempt **** **** **** ** *******’* surveillance ***.

Florida’s ***** ******* ** ***** *********

******* ** *** ** ** ****** that ********* ***** *************** ******* ** ****** **** *********, locker *****, *** ******** ***** ** ***** people *** “******** * ****** *****,” however *** ******* *********** *** ***** ** ***** *****:

  • "* ******* ****** ** ************* ****** on *** ******** ******* **** * video ************ ****** *** **** ********* for *** ******* ** ********”
  • “*** ******** ** *** ****** ** clearly *** *********** *******."
  • *** “*** *********** ****** ********** ************ for * *** *********** *******.”

** *** **** ** *** ****** video, *** *****, ********* ** *** police **********.

Technically *** ******* ****’* ** * '********'The Miami Beach police department says this video would not fall into the category of a bathroom, locker room or dressing room either.

“**** ** ******** * ********* ******* cell **** **** ******* ** **** a ****** ** *****,” **** * police ********** ************. “**’* *** * restroom *****. **’* * ****. **** *** doesn’t ***** ** **** *****. ** it *** ** ****** ********* ******** it *****. ** **** **** ***** with ******* ** ****.”

*** ********* **** *** ******* *** there ******* ****** **** ** ** able ** *** *** ****** **** to **** **** * ****** *****’* try ** **** ********** ** ******* else. *** ******* *** ********* **** 24/7.

** **** *** **** ** *** law ********* ******* ****** ****** **** doesn’t ***** *******, “*****’* **** * metal ******* **** ******** ****** *** private ****.”

*** ***** ***** ** **** ***** have **** ** ***** ********** ** the ******* ****** *** ******* ** its ******* *****.

** ***, **** **** **** **** that ******** ******* *** **** **** in ******* ** **** ** ***** is *******, *** ***** *** ****** or ******** ******* *******?

A **** *** ** **********

***** ** * ******* **** ** Washington ***** **** ***** **** ********* in ******* *****. ******* ***** *** suing *** ******* ****** ********** *** recording **** ***** ***** *** ******** in ******* *****. **** *** ***** for ******* *** ***** ****** **********. They *** **** *** * ********** expectation ** *******. *** **** ******** argues **** * ****** *****'* **** an *********** ** ******* [**** ** longer *********] **** **** ** ** jail.

***** *** ** ******** ******** *** person **** *** **** ** *** camera ** *** ******* *****. *** image ***** *** ****** **** *** security ****** *** ******** ***** ******* (*** ***** *** *** added ***** *** ****):


Comments (29)

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.

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

If a video is part of an investigation, that automatically exempts it from public disclosure. Do you mean after the investigation is over?

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.

In the US you do not really forfeit or lose any rights when you are arrested per say. But by committing an act against another individual you have infringed on their rights and as such forfeit some of your own. The legal system allows limiting freedom of movement (most people can bond out) and a search to provide for a safe holding environment. You are innocent until proven guilty (though in this modern police state it seems the other way around). As such you do not lose rights until convicted at a trial by an impartial judge and jury of peers.

I agree the video should only be available to the person involved or if someone in the public has other proof that the video holder had committed criminal acts and that the video would provide evidence.

The Miranda warning (in a nutshell) is more so you don't incriminate yourself or get interrogated without legal counsel present.

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. :)

Yeah, take down the metal divider!!!

Wait, what?

I just added a section at the end about a case where a jail has no metal dividers ... and is now being sued for privacy and civil rights violations.

"They wouldn't require the divider if there wasn't some expectation to privacy." I can see that argument.

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.

In Puyallup it is also a holding cell for DUI arrests, like it is in the Bieber case.

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.

"In a typical row of "public" urinals, men do not have a reasonable expectation that nobody nearby could possibly observe them doing their business"

Really? Isn't that what the barriers between each one serve?

This can be solved by experiment. Just go to the nearest public men's bathroom and peer over the barrier, looking down. Report back with findings....

You don't even have to look down..... any swiveling of the head at a row of public urinals is a violation of the he-man code. We all know it. (and now the women readers do too - it was no secret).

I'm not exactly sure, and this may vary by location... but I believe even looking down at your own business in that same arena might violate a sub-section of that same code.

Not quite what I intended ("nobody nearby could possibly observe them" doesn't address the social mores of attempts to do so), and some urinals like Home Depot's trough systems lack dividers, but I have to admit that your response is both colorful and funny!

This can be solved by experiment. Just go to the nearest public men's bathroom and peer over the barrier, looking down.

Reporting back: Extreme worst reactions, would not recommend.

note: I doubt John has ever tried this himself as it is more tough than you are to imagine as 'barriers' are high here even for tall man and tipping on toes is not relaxing.

Too funny! For the record, and to minimize any future liability, I was joking...

My point is that guys do have an expectation of privacy even if they are at a urinal.

Maybe you did it wrong. I made a new friend.

update: misunderstood verb peer : it is not past tense form. can redo test, should be Much easier.

Mr. Gligorich, I urge you to consider scientific publication of your results in one of the more respected journals, possibly Nature or at least Field and Stream.

Although preparation is difficult and acceptence uncertain, I believe you to have a leg up on the process since you have clearly gone beyond the call of duty and have easily overshot any and all requirements for peer review.

This can be solved by experiment.

Let's just call it:

John's John and Johnson Experiment. ;)

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

Oh yes.... and the he-man code doesn't stop at the swinging door to the mens room.

For instance, there is the Speedo Credo that all he-men must sign swearing never to come closer than a 5 foot radius of one, and to publicly rebuke any other male you see wearing one.

Then there are whole chapters on acceptable bar-room pool etiquette, what drink you can or can not imbibe in the presence of other males, the Banned Breeds of Dog list... it goes on and on.

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

None of it? Don't you lose some accountability that way?

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports