Yahoo Web Search

Search results

1. www.aclu.org › court-casesVideo Surveillance Court Cases | American Civil Liberties Union

   www.aclu.org › court-cases

   • Cached

   View case. U.S. Supreme Court. Video Surveillance. Moore v. United States. On November 18, 2022, the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, with the law firms of Thompson & Thompson, P.C. and Elkins, Auer, Rudof & Schiff, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera ...

   • Privacy and Surveillance Court Cases | American Civil ...

     In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme...

   • U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Warrantless ...

     United States, leaving in place a patchwork of lower court...

2. harvardlawreview.org › print › vol-135United States v. Tuggle - Harvard Law Review

   harvardlawreview.org › print › vol-135

   • Cached

   Jan 10, 2022 · Mora, 150 N.E.3d 297, 311 (Mass. 2020) (“[P]rolonged and targeted video surveillance of a home has the potential to generate far more data regarding a person’s private life [than GPS tracking]. . . . [V]ideo surveillance reveals how a person looks and behaves, with whom the residents of the home meet, and how they interact with others.”).

3. People also ask

   Why did the Supreme Court not hear a surveillance case?

   • “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case means that people across the country remain vulnerable to law enforcement’s claim of unfettered authority to surveil any of us at our homes, for as long as they wish, with no judicial oversight,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

   U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Warrantless Pole

   www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-warrantless-pole-camera-surveillance

   See all results for this question

   What did the court say about surveillance?

   • Still, the court acknowledged its “unease” about the implications of its decision for future surveillance and called the government’s behavior “concerning, even if permissible.” 40 Judge Flaum identified two challenges.

   United States v. Tuggle - Harvard Law Review

   harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/united-states-v-tuggle/

   See all results for this question

   Are surveillance cameras a Fourth Amendment search?

   • We’re calling on the court to clarify that long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home is a Fourth Amendment search. Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

   U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Warrantless Pole

   www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-warrantless-pole-camera-surveillance

   See all results for this question

   Does pole camera surveillance require a warrant?

   • Federal courts of appeals and state supreme courts have divided on the question of whether such sweeping surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. The highest courts of Massachusetts, Colorado, and South Dakota have held that long-term pole camera surveillance of someone’s home requires a warrant. In Moore v.

   U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Warrantless Pole

   www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-warrantless-pole-camera-surveillance

   See all results for this question

4. cdt.org › insights › digital-is-different-poleDigital is Different: “Pole Camera” Ruling Demonstrates ...

   cdt.org › insights › digital-is-different-pole

   • Cached

   Jul 31, 2019 · This case is the first to extend similar protection to the use of long-term video surveillance by police. As advances in technology continue to make it easier for law enforcement to monitor members of the public in and around their homes, the Fourth Amendment remains a bedrock of protection and a crucial safeguard against unrestrained ...

5. www.supremecourt.gov › DocketPDF › 22No. 22-481 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

   www.supremecourt.gov › DocketPDF › 22

   the court attempted to faithfully apply current doc-trine to the facts of Moore’s case. Three judges thought this Court’s doctrine forbade government agents from using months-long, round-the-clock video surveillance to record the activities of people in and around their homes without violating the Fourth Amendment.

6. www.eff.org › press › releasesEFF to Supreme Court: Warrantless 24-Hour Video Surveillance ...

   www.eff.org › press › releases

   • Cached

   Nov 12, 2021 · The Fourth Amendment protects people against lengthy, intrusive, always-on video recording—especially when that video records all activity outside their homes, EFF said today in a brief filed with the court. Our homes are our most private and protected spaces, and police should not film everything that happens at the home without prior court ...