Pole cameras are everywhere these days recording our movements on public streets. While they may have many purposes, the government often uses them to aid crime prevention and criminal investigations. However, the use of cameras in investigations raises the question of whether they represent an unlawful “search” under the Fourth Amendment when directed at a home’s exterior. This issue was addressed in U.S. v Charles House.
Defendant Charles House traveled to California several times to obtain large quantities of drugs and ship them to addresses associated with him in Indiana. FedEx employees alerted law enforcement to several suspicious packages. After the officers examined the packages with drug-sniffing dogs, they obtained a warrant to open the packages and found the drugs. Subsequently, law enforcement put up pole cameras aimed at House’s residence to observe packages he picked up at a residence across the street. The cameras were monitored daily, and the footage was used as the basis to obtain additional evidence and identify an informant. The government did not get a search warrant to install the cameras.
House was later arrested and moved to suppress the pole camera evidence on the grounds it was an unlawful search. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s opinion.
The decision considered the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Prior to the House decision, courts had held that pole cameras outside of an apartment building were permissible. However, there were some questions about whether they were legal if located outside of a private residence in all cases.
In determining whether the pole cameras were an unreasonable search and seizure, the Court looked at whether the defendant “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and whether “society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.”
The Court noted that House didn’t try to shield the front of his house, and the pole cameras provided the same view as any passerby on the street would have had. Under prior case law, a defendant has no expectation of privacy under these circumstances, so there was no unreasonable search and seizure.
However, House also argued that the cameras were illegal because of their prolonged use in front of his home. The Court rejected the argument, stating that the defendant’s reasoning has not been adopted by the Supreme Court and has been rejected by most other courts. Furthermore, pole cameras are different from other surveillance technologies, which may collect information regardless of location and keep historical data. Cameras do not provide a full record of a defendant’s whereabouts or reveal any information before the cameras are installed. As such, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy under these circumstances of the case.
Footage from pole cameras can be used in criminal cases. However, surveillance using other technologies may not be as clearcut.
If you are facing a criminal matter, contact our firm for a consultation. We have extensive experience representing clients in all types of criminal matters, and can advocate on your behalf at every stage in your case.