Judge Throws Out Evidence Obtained By Six Weeks Of Warrantless Surveillance Footage

from the Warrants:-the-ultimate-in-unobtanium dept

Despite arguments otherwise, most of them broached by government lawyers, what can be viewed by the public may also contain a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A federal judge has just thrown out evidence obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. The case, which dates back to last year, involves Washington police and Leonel Vargas, an immigrant who law enforcement suspected of drug trafficking. Without a warrant, police installed a video camera on a nearby utility pole and aimed it at Vargas' front yard. After over a month of recording, the police got lucky: Vargas, an undocumented immigrant, decided to perform target practice in the front yard of his rural Washington home. This gave officers the probable cause they needed (illegal weapons possession) to search Vargas' house. The resulting search uncovered drugs and guns, leading to his arrest and indictment.

Vargas objected to this violation of his privacy. The government argued that Vargas' publicly-viewable front yard and door couldn't be considered private. This argument waged back and forth for several months, with the EFF entering an amicus brief on behalf of the defendant at the invitation of the court late last year.

The EFF has some good news to report, and it's all contained in a minute order by Judge Shea.
Law enforcement's warrantless and constant covert video surveillance of Defendant's rural front yard is contrary to the public's reasonable expectation of privacy and violates Defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The video evidence and fruit of the video evidence are suppressed.
As the EFF points out, even public areas have privacy implications. While no one reasonably expects the front of their house to be a private area in the strictest sense, they do reasonably expect that no one will place it under uninterrupted observation for extended periods of time… at least not without a warrant.

The hitch, of course, is that the privacy violation is tied to the length of time and the type of the surveillance. There's no specific point at which privacy protections kick back in (so to speak), so decisions like this are being made on a case-by-case basis. Given the courts' general slack-cutting when it comes to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, this is probably the best we can expect for the time being.

Considering how much time elapsed between the installation of the camera and the capture of incriminating footage, it's hard to see why local law enforcement didn't pursue other investigative methods or obtain a warrant. Now, because it opted for warrantless, long-term surveillance, its most incriminating evidence can't be used against the suspected drug trafficker. Law enforcement agencies often claim that the securing of warrants takes too much time and allows criminals to escape arrest, but in far too many cases, the actual facts contradict these arguments.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: leonel vargas, surveillance, video, warrant, washington


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2014 @ 2:50pm

    Well they always have lying as an alternative to evidence. Seems just as good.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dick Cheney, 15 Dec 2014 @ 2:58pm

    They should have just tortured him until he admitted to being a drug dealer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 Dec 2014 @ 3:01pm

    What's good for the goose

    The government argued that Vargas' publicly-viewable front yard and door couldn't be considered private.

    If that really is the case, then it would be funny if someone were to set up a similar camera system pointed at the front doors of the police station and/or the parking lot. Both are 'publicly viewable', so there's no privacy concerns according to their argument, yet I imagine they would likely throw a huge fit if someone actually did that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 16 Dec 2014 @ 9:08am

      Re: What's good for the goose

      And when they complain, we can use the usual excuse:
      If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2014 @ 10:06am

      Re: What's good for the goose

      ...yet I imagine they would likely throw a huge fit if someone actually did that.

      And they do, on a regular basis - http://photographyisnotacrime.com

      Jeff Gray takes picture of publicly viewable government buildings and gets harassed citing "privacy concerns" and "national security."

      So yes, they are exactly the hypocritical fucks that they appear to be.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2014 @ 3:01pm

    Ninth Circuit

    Appeals of decisions from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    KRA, 15 Dec 2014 @ 3:31pm

    Reasonable

    The argument hinges on what a reasonable expectation is, and that is constant shifting toward expecting no privacy anywhere in our burgeoning surveillance state.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NO you are the Bomb, 15 Dec 2014 @ 4:01pm

    Lots of sound and fury

    But signifying nothing, the US as well as most western governments have made it clear that tracking by the state will be what will happen, you don't get a choice or a say.

    They are going to kill you and your children, I don't understand why no one will think of the children.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Dec 2014 @ 4:15pm

      Re: Lots of sound and fury

      The power of denial. It's so much more comforting to cling to the idea that only 'bad people' ever need worry about mass surveillence, that only 'criminals' would ever be caught up or have their personal information collected, indexed, and added to a database somewhere.

      And hey, there might have been some merit to those ideas... if those in charge didn't consider everyone potential criminals in need of spying on, 'just in case'.

      Under 'Innocent until proven guilty', the only people who would be spied on would be those that, according to other evidence, were likely to be guilty of a specific crime, and even then the surveillance would be limited and targeted, scooping up what was needed and nothing else.

      Under the current system, 'Guilty in general until specific charges can be found' however, everyone gets spied upon, because some of them might, at some point, do something illegal. This has the added bonus(to those doing the spying) of enabling you to bring charges against anyone at your discretion, as given enough time and data, everyone will break a law or two, often without even realizing it, or say something that could be used against them due to how it sounds.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        NO you are the Bomb, 15 Dec 2014 @ 4:33pm

        Re: Re: Lots of sound and fury

        The recent sneak attack in the states has made it clear, officially legalizes ex order 12333 AND make it legal to intercept ANY Cell phone communications and keep them forever, since ALL cell traffic is enciphered, by default, just so this is for the purpose of not getting your GSM crossed with someone else's is of no consequence technically it's correct and technical correctness is the best sort of correctness, face it the state has been taken over by power gamers.

        #gamergate.gov For the win!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 15 Dec 2014 @ 4:51pm

    key is "rural"

    I'm rural. IMHO if you can't take a leak (or do a little target practice) in your own front yard in the middle of the day without the neighbors complainin', you ain't rural.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 15 Dec 2014 @ 5:33pm

    Semi privacy

    Though the method and length of surveillance were not given more explicit guidelines, I think the judge's reasoning goes like this: If the police observed illegal activity while on patrol or otherwise in the area it would likely be admissible. But 24/7 surveillance for any length of time needs a warrant which is likely to take at most a few hours to obtain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2014 @ 6:23pm

      Re: Semi privacy

      I would agree: Horton Vs. California
      Basically, the third point was it has to be immediately apparent, and from the actual ruling:
      "Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the 'plain view' doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges."
      So my guess would be the use of surveillance cameras themselves should be limited to the scope of the investigation, or in fact need another warrant to use that footage against another crime.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2014 @ 10:07pm

    A judge who doesn't immediately side with police and consider them to be arbitrarily above the law? Color me impressed. Good to know there are still fair trials out there in the wasteland of the American legal system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 16 Dec 2014 @ 1:26am

    Epic win for privacy and the EFF! Even though most of us would like to see criminals behind bars I'd rather see him go free than see constitutional and civil rights eroded.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Just Another Anonymous Troll, 16 Dec 2014 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      It is our civic duty to protect the rights of all, even those we find undesirable.
      If we do not, there may come a time when your rights need protecting, but no one will protect you because you are undesirable.
      First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a terrorist.
      Then they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a pedophile.
      Then they came for the criminals, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a criminals.
      Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2014 @ 6:37am

    Why is it so hard to get a warrant?

    Why in 2014, is it so difficult to obtain a warrant?

    It really, really, really, makes you wonder exactly what LAW ENFORCEMENT is trying to hide.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2014 @ 2:29pm

      Re: Why is it so hard to get a warrant?

      Two things:

      1) A lot of their 'targets' are based upon little more than hunches, which don't satisfy the requirements for a warrant.

      2) Warrants create paper-trails, documenting exactly what they are looking for and what evidence they had prior to that to justify a warrant. And if you don't know what you're looking for, because you don't have more than a hunch(see #1), then you can't describe just what you expect to find to a judge in order to get a proper warrant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2014 @ 7:18am

    Here is the joke in this whole mess. "Vargas, an undocumented immigrant"

    Right there in prime time, Vargas is an illegal alien. Why get a warrant because you suspect him of selling drugs? Kick his illegal ass out of the country.

    Oh wait, we don't do that. Sorry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2014 @ 7:58am

    Why arrest an illegal alien that you suspect is breaking the law? Just deport them. They are here illegally, they are already breaking the law. Kick them out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2014 @ 2:59pm

    "installed a video camera on a nearby utility pole and aimed it at Vargas' front yard"

    So whats the punishment for accessing cameras, microphones, sensors, gps, cell data, broadband data, outside AND...... *inside* your house


    Oh thats right, "what crime" /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.