Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. “Warrantless photographic surveillance”

“Warrantless photographic surveillance”

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
3 Posts 3 Posters 45 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2023/06/02/723698.htm

    A Connecticut husband and wife claim in a lawsuit that a bear with a camera is violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They want the state to stop it.

    Mark and Carol Brault allege that the state attached the camera to the bear that has gone onto their property and taken photos of the interior of their home in West Hartland. They maintain the wild animal’s actions amount to “warrantless photographic surveillance” of the interior of their home on their 114 acre property.

    In their complaint against the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the Braults allege that DEEP has tagged and placed cameras on bears in their area, including one known as Bear 119 which they observed on May 20 on their property with a video camera on its collar. Mark Brault took a photograph of the bear with his own camera.

    “I have known that bear for a long time,” Brault says in an accompanying affidavit. He said the bear frequents their property and adjacent properties.

    The Braults say they never gave the state permission to enter their property and the state never notified them that bears it knows frequent their property have been tagged and equipped with video surveillance equipment.

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • AxtremusA Offline
      AxtremusA Offline
      Axtremus
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Huh, I didn't know that states now attach cameras to wildlife. How are they going to change or recharge the batteries to keep those cameras powered on?

      If the cameras are not powered on, would there be a 4th Amendment violation still?

      1 Reply Last reply
      • JonJ Offline
        JonJ Offline
        Jon
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Interesting case.

        1 Reply Last reply
        Reply
        • Reply as topic
        Log in to reply
        • Oldest to Newest
        • Newest to Oldest
        • Most Votes


        • Login

        • Don't have an account? Register

        • Login or register to search.
        • First post
          Last post
        0
        • Categories
        • Recent
        • Tags
        • Popular
        • Users
        • Groups