Expectation of Privacy?

[WETWRKS]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/04/suspended-cops-say-video-of-them-eating

Just because you ripped out all the cameras you saw doesn't mean you are not being recorded...and considering they knew there was a recording system in place you really cannot claim an expectation of privacy.

Moreover it seems to me they took out the cameras with the intention of covering up intended criminal activity.

[RCCrawler]

My guess is that there are signs at the business that let them know they were being recorded.

If if someone had popped up from behind the counter and shot and killed one of those officers do you think they'd be using the footage against that person?

Being that this is California my guess is they'll get their way on this.

[Irving]

It was only their persons caught on camera, and not their individuals.

[cstone]

I believe the officers will lose on the grounds that the government did not violate their right to privacy. The private property owner had a right to record on their property. Turning over evidence of criminal conduct to the government is the proper thing for a private entity.

Most public employees have a diminished right to privacy during their work hours and in any given work space.

For the administrative portion of the investigation, the recording will be fair use for the employing agency to take disciplinary action.

[Bailey Guns]

Expectation of privacy? More like expectation of some sort of discipline.

[Great-Kazoo]

No one ordered pizza?

[Martinjmpr]

I believe this is what is known as "grasping at straws" in the legal world. Hey, the lawyer's gotta work with what he's got.

Saying "I had an expectation of privacy because I disabled the surveillance camera" is a little like saying "It's not theft because the person I stole it from, stole it first." :rolleyes:

[Martinjmpr]

No one ordered pizza?

Dave's not here, man.

[Ah Pook]

If it is anything like CO law, those cameras were mandated by the state to "keep an eye on things". They even have to have the ability for live feed to the powers that be.

[james_bond_007]

They 'expected' privacy, but due to their own negligence or oversight, their actions and conversations were recorded.
THEY were the ones that tried to enable their privacy...but failed.
They only have themselves to blame for the lack of privacy.
No one re-enabled the cameras after they attempted to disable them.
Thus some of the SAME security devices that were recording them PRIOR to them trying to disable the system were still recording them afterwards.
In other words, the surveillance status of some of the recording devices DID NOT CHANGE from the time when they did NOT expect privacy.
So, in reality, they knew the facility had video surveillance. NO PRIVACY.
They tried and failed to disable the surveillance themselves (were they experts in video electronics?...probably not).

They admit to allowing confidential conversations to be recorded and compromising themselves (permitting the recording of video of undercover agents).
Wouldn't that be a crime or at least a violation of department policy (I'm making an assumption of having some related policy)?

If they DID consume edibles, that, in my opinion would be :
1) Possible theft - Store owner could prosecute, right ?
2) Possible destruction or tampering with evidence etc.
3) Being impaired (due to the laced edibles) while on duty ?

[fitz19d]

Also, I don't remember what the case was called. But the old court decision about criminals shouldn't have the expectation not to be caught, but that they should expect resources are being used to catch them. (Horribly worded but it's a vague memory)

[Martinjmpr]

Also, I don't remember what the case was called. But the old court decision about criminals shouldn't have the expectation not to be caught, but that they should expect resources are being used to catch them. (Horribly worded but it's a vague memory)

Yeah I think these cops confused "expectation of privacy" (which is a valid defense) with "expectation of not getting caught" which is not.

[Doc45]

Hmm, wonder if the attorney representing these Mensa members has a large alimony/house/car payment to make?