Kansas Federal Court Says Ten Weeks Of Pole Camera Surveillance Isn’t A Constitutional Violation

from the just-like-a-1680-hour-stakeout,-I-guess dept

Jurisprudence on warrantless long-term surveillance is still all over the place. On one hand, some courts feel anything observable by passersby shouldn’t be off limits to law enforcement officers who haven’t secured a search warrant.

Other courts have determined lengthy surveillance — especially when using cameras that can zoom, enhance, move, and record every minute of weeks of watching — might be a Fourth Amendment problem. In these cases, the inability of officers to perform the same surveillance without raising suspicion from the surveilled appears to be the difference, especially when coupled with the perfect recall recordings can provide.

This ruling [PDF] by a Kansas federal court says 10 weeks of always-on pole camera surveillance doesn’t raise constitutional questions. (h/t Orin Kerr, who notes the First Circuit has been sitting on a possibly precedential pole camera surveillance case for more than a year now. [Not that the case would matter here in terms of circuit precedent, but may have been useful to cite during arguments for/against…])

The underlying criminal offense isn’t the sort of thing most pole camera surveillance cases are made of. No drugs or weapons trafficking. Just some alleged “theft of public money.”

Suspecting that Defendant Bruce Hay had falsely claimed he was disabled to receive disability payments, federal agents surveilled him without a warrant to obtain evidence of his physical capabilities. The agents installed a pole camera on public property across the street from his residence and recorded nearly ten weeks’ worth of footage.

The federal officers were members of the Veteran’s Administration’s Office of the Inspector General. They placed a camera facing Hay’s house that was able to capture his porch, front yard, and driveway. The camera was activated for nearly eight continuous weeks. It was then used intermittently to capture another two weeks of footage from March 24 to May 8, 2017, following the eight straight weeks captured from October 6, 2016 to November 29, 2016.

The camera was motion-activated and could be controlled remotely by OIG agents. They could also control its zoom, pan, and tilt features. The camera did not record audio, but it did allow the VA OIG to record everything seen by the camera for access by agents.

Hay argued that while Tenth Circuit precedent holds that pole camera surveillance isn’t a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision (creating a warrant requirement for historical cell site location data) undercut circuit precedent.

Here, just like in Jackson (and Cantu), the pole camera could not view inside Hay’s house; the camera could only capture the front of his residence, an area plainly visible to the public. Under Jackson, then, Hay lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area viewed by the camera, so the pole camera surveillance was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Hay does not attempt to distinguish Jackson. Instead, he contends Jackson does not control the outcome of this case after Carpenter v. United States, where the Supreme Court found an expectation of privacy in historical cell-site location records, because Carpenter “upended” Jackson’s reasoning. Hay argues that, under Carpenter and the concurring opinions in United States v. Jones, he has a “reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements over time.” And he urges this Court to find that the prolonged pole camera surveillance here invaded that privacy expectation. While Hay does not expressly use the term, his argument is premised on a “mosaic theory” of the Fourth Amendment, under which law enforcement activities that are not searches in isolation may nevertheless become a search when viewed in the aggregate.

The federal court disagrees. It says there’s no binding precedent that requires the court to read the Supreme Court decisions in Jones and Carpenter as creating a “mosaic theory” capable of covering the surveillance of a home’s entrance. This surveillance doesn’t reveal much about a person’s movements, other than when they leave and when they come back, in contrast to weeks of historic cell site location info (or a car-mounted GPS-tracking device), which reveals plenty about a person’s movements.

And, the court adds, the Supreme Court expressly limited its finding to the cell site location info at hand.

The Carpenter Court also emphasized that its ruling was “a narrow one,” limited to the specific question presented in that case, and it did not “call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras.” This Court therefore cannot read Jackson as relying on reasoning that Carpenter has upended.

That’s not to say the implications of Carpenter may not ever become a factor in cases like these. It’s that this circuit (the Tenth) isn’t quite there yet. As it stands now, Hay’s arguments fail.

Hay may well be right that the Tenth Circuit should, in light of Carpenter, reconsider Jackson and broaden the application of Carpenter’s mosaic reasoning to pole camera surveillance. But this Court’s role is to apply Tenth Circuit precedent, not to reconsider it.

This appears to be the court hinting Hay’s arguments might fare better one step up the ladder at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then again, the Tenth could simply decide its prior precedent is still the law (of this portion) of the land and boot it back with little to no comment.

Hay’s “mosaic theory” doesn’t apply here, either. The camera watched his house. It did not track his movements beyond that space. While it did give investigators advantages they would not have had if they had engaged on an in-person stakeout, it did not allow them to surveil his movements once he left the house.

The court closes its opinion by again hinting it might be worth exploring at the appellate level.

Hay raises legitimate concerns about the duration of the pole camera surveillance. But the pole camera surveillance in this case does not present the same privacy concerns that animated the majority in Carpenter and the concurrences in Jones. Thus, even applying the mosaic theory, the prolonged pole camera surveillance did not invade any reasonable expectation of privacy.

For now, it’s a loss for Hay and anyone seeking to challenge warrantless pole camera surveillance. But the court here has hinted it may be time for existing circuit precedent to be given a closer examination by the higher court. Hay may not present the best case for overturning precedent, but 10 weeks of nearly uninterrupted surveillance is a better case than most, even if the underlying crime seems a bit underwhelming.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Kansas Federal Court Says Ten Weeks Of Pole Camera Surveillance Isn’t A Constitutional Violation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Michael Grimes (user link) says:

Kansas Federal Court Says Ten Weeks Of Pole Camera Surveillance Isn’t A Constitutional Violation

I have to agree with the court on this one. I am a 100% disabled vet, I also have experience as a civil service supervisor with employees making bogus disability claims.

The nature of the investigation, determining if disability fraud was occurring, takes time to prove. What is reasonable? In this case, whatever is long enough to convince the investigators that the person is or is not disabled. You have to see a variety of actions, esp. if it involves something specific disaility, to either determine or dismiss a claim of disability fraud.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:



Yes because ALL disabled people are exactly the same & disability renders them incapable of anything ever.

Somedays I walk just fine, somedays I come dangerously close to falling.
Somedays I can carry 6 grocery bags, somedays that’s way to much to even think about.
Somedays I am bright eyed & bushy tailed, somedays I don’t have enough energy to get out of bed.
Somedays I have to suck it up and do shit I know will leave me confined to bed for the rest of the day.
Am I disabled enough?
Does watching me for 10 weeks provide enough detail not in my medical records to prove I’m faking or not?

A woman was denied disability because they found a picture of her on FB where she smiled while on vacation.
Because 1 smiling photo completely disproves that a person suffering from crippling depression is disabled.

10 weeks of watching me does nothing 1 way or another to confirm or deny I’m disabled. Especially when those watching only need to make a highlight reel of where I did things they assume are beyond the scope of what I can do, ignoring that sometimes shit has to get done and causing yourself more pain is the only way to get it done.

But then this is an agency claiming Burn Pits weren’t really that bad & that people who are suicidal can wait 3 weeks for an appointment. Thank the FSM they have enough time, people, & resources to watch 1 dude for 10 weeks on the off chance he might not actually meet the criteria of being disabled enough all the time while the suicide rate among those they are charged with caring about keeps going unchecked.

You can see yourself out…
I’d help but if I pick up my cane to walk you out I am liable to beat the fuck out of you with it.

PaulT (profile) says:


“I am a 100% disabled vet”

Lots of people claim disability but aren’t 100% disabled. A person being able to do things some of the time but not others does not invalidate the whole claim necessarily, unless you’re trying to misrepresent evidence to prove that when you caught them on a good day that’s representative of all days. I don’t know the specifics of the disability in this case, but as someone with a family member who can walk unaided sometimes and sometimes requires a wheelchair, you’re not proving anything by filming him on a good day unless you’re trying to pretend that he and his doctors are lying when they say he sometimes can’t walk unaided.

“The nature of the investigation, determining if disability fraud was occurring, takes time to prove”

I have to wonder – what was the state paying out to this one guy that they could justify employing someone for 10 weeks to install and monitor equipment in order to catch him out? There might not have been one dedicated employee to these cameras, but I do wonder what the actual cost vs reward was, especially if they didn’t get any evidence (and that opens up the idea that they were incentivised to find anything they could use regardless of accuracy).

Then, why was that all good, but the time taken to get a warrant wasn’t?

I’m all for people actually ripping off benefits being caught and punished, but suspected fraud doesn’t removed all other rights and there’s a long history of genuinely disabled people being denied because someone found an excuse to do so.

me says:

I'll take the "this is where it begins" argument

First its Vets abusing benefits, then its the FBI about some guy who spouted off on facebook and created “concern”, then the unmarked vans start “detaining” people because they’re defending federal property, way in the suburbs or downtown, away from any, you know, federal property.

Seth says:

Expectation of Privacy

I understand that if you go out of your house a neighbor might see you outside, or someone driving by will see you, possibly someone you know.

But in my opinion that’s not the same as the government using a camera to systematically build a database that documents and registers every time you come and go from your house. This is a violation of privacy and needs to be considered as such.

Three weeks from now your neighbor won’t remember which day they saw you outside cutting the lawn, but three weeks later that government camera database will show the exact time you were outside.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...