By Jay Jason Barlett

The conflict between security and privacy intensifies as technology develops and monitoring capabilities become more advanced. The United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which safeguards people from arbitrary searches and seizures, is a key document which influences the laws governing video surveillance. The notion of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” plays a crucial role in establishing the legality of monitoring.

The Supreme Court has established that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain places, such as their homes and private property. However, this expectation is not absolute. For instance, public spaces, such as sidewalks or parking lots, generally do not provide the same level of privacy.

When it comes to video surveillance, courts often balance the government’s interest in public safety and law enforcement with an individual’s right to privacy. This balancing test can be complex, and the outcome can vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

State and Local Regulations:

In addition to federal law, states and municipalities have enacted various laws and ordinances that regulate video surveillance. These regulations can vary widely, but they often address issues such as:

• Public Spaces: Many jurisdictions have laws that govern the use of video surveillance in public spaces, including businesses, government buildings, and transportation hubs. These laws may require property owners to notify individuals that they are being monitored or to obtain consent before recording them.
• Private Property: Some states have laws that limit the use of video surveillance on private property, particularly when it comes to recording individuals without their knowledge or consent.
• Specific Industries: Certain industries, such as retail, healthcare, and law enforcement, may have specific regulations governing the use of video surveillance. 
• Cannabis Operations: The legal status of cannabis varies by jurisdiction, but many states and municipalities have regulations governing the use of video surveillance at cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities. These regulations may require businesses to maintain video footage for a certain period of time and to comply with specific security protocols.

Landmark Cases: Carpenter v. United States and Riley v. California

Two recent Supreme Court cases have significantly impacted the legal landscape for video surveillance and physical security implementations:

• Carpenter v. United States: This case involved the government’s use of historical cell phone location data (CSLD) to track the movements of a suspected criminal. The Court ruled that the government’s acquisition of CSLD without a warrant constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. This decision has implications for video surveillance, as some surveillance systems may rely on data that could be considered similar to CSLD.
• Riley v. California: In this case, the Court held that police officers cannot search a smartphone without a warrant, even if the phone is seized incident to a lawful arrest. This decision emphasizes the importance of obtaining a warrant before accessing data that could reveal sensitive information, such as location data, contacts, and messages.

Impact on Video Surveillance and Physical Security

These cases have several implications for video surveillance and physical security implementations:

• Increased Need for Warrants: The decisions in Carpenter and Riley reinforce the importance of obtaining warrants before conducting certain types of surveillance or accessing data that could reveal sensitive information. This could increase the burden on law enforcement agencies and businesses that rely on surveillance.
• Focus on Privacy-By-Design: Organizations should consider adopting a “privacy-by-design” approach to their surveillance systems, which means incorporating privacy considerations into the design and implementation of the technology from the outset. This could involve limiting the scope of surveillance, implementing data minimization practices, and ensuring that data is securely stored and protected.
• Careful Consideration of Data Retention: Businesses should carefully consider how long they retain video footage and other surveillance data. Retaining data for longer than necessary can increase the risk of unauthorized access or misuse.
• Transparency and Notification: Organizations should be transparent about their surveillance practices and provide clear notice to individuals that they are being monitored. This can help to build trust and reduce concerns about privacy.

Information on the most recent changes in the legal landscape pertaining to video surveillance is essential for enterprises to stay up to date. Businesses need to make sure that their monitoring operations are legal and uphold individual rights by comprehending the ramifications of recent court rulings and implementing best practices for security and privacy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jay Bartlett has been in the computer industry for over four decades and in the storage management since 2000. A serial entrepreneur, Jay has founded software and hardware companies and has managed many technical teams to deliver innovative solutions to the market. As the CEO of Cozaint, Jay is driving intelligent surveillance solutions to the physical security market