Court
Negligent Security: When Is Crime Your Problem?
This valuable whitepaper, presented by the Federation of Defense and Corporate Council Winter Meeting in March of 2011, is still timely today and shared with the SecurityHive.com community to provide a better understanding on how our companies could be liable for large jury verdicts for not providing proper secure environments. Written by Richards H. Ford of Wicker, Smith, O’hara, McCoy, and Ford, P.A., a Florida law firm, this whitepaper showcases what negligent security conditions can cost an organization via a lawsuit.
U.S. Court Rules That Phone Passcodes Are Protected by the 5th Amendment, but Fingerprints Aren?t
A Circuit Court judge in Virginia has ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, a decision that has clear privacy implications for fingerprint-protected devices like newer iPhones and iPads. According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can’t be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.
Couple Sues Comcast After Xfinity Security System Fails
While most large incumbent ISPs have rushed head-first into the home security and home automation market, few of those companies have been willing to specify how many users have signed up for such services – suggesting they’re not yet seeing quite the uptake they’d like. One other threat has now arisen for ISPs looking to be home security experts: lawsuits.
U.S. Patent Office Questions Validity of Utility Associates? Boykin ?556 Patent and Institutes Inter Partes Review
Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ: DGLY), which develops, manufactures and markets advanced video surveillance products for law enforcement, homeland security and commercial applications, announced that it has been informed that the United States Patent Office has granted its request to examine the validity of certain claims of United States Patent No. 6,831,556 that was issued to Boykin (the "556 patent"), which is owned by Utility Associates, Inc.
Judge Allows Video in Toledo Chop Shop Case
A video camera mounted on a telephone pole overlooking a purported central Toledo chop shop for more than four months was legal, a federal judge ruled, though investigators still should have sought a warrant before installing it. [ See the original article posted August 12 here .]
Video Evidence In Chop-Shop Case Challenged
Around the clock for more than four months, federal investigators watched the goings-on at a purported chop shop in central Toledo, Ohio, with a high-tech video camera that was mounted atop a telephone pole. Attorneys for Michael G. Wymer, the alleged leader of the operation, have asked U.S. District Judge James Carr to suppress the […]
Years After Court Ruling On GPS Tracking, Muddy Landscape For Judges, Law Enforcement
A 2-year-old Supreme Court decision has caused more confusion than clarity on how police may track the whereabouts of criminal suspects, illustrating how hard it is for the slow-moving judicial system to keep up with the light speed of technology. Alito, wrote that technological change can alter the public’s expectation of privacy and that lawmakers […]
Bank Escapes Judgement After Destroying Video Evidence
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenged a SunTrust bank in Gulf Gate, Fla., for destroying surveillance video from a period of alleged sexual harassment and persuaded a district court in an April 7, 2014, decision to introduce evidence at trial about the bank?s failure to preserve the video footage. Several bank tellers?Marcia Vescio, […]
Surveillance Cameras: Good Versus Bad Placement
It’s something we see every day, bad surveillance video. When you can’t make out the person though, it often times doesn’t hold up in court. A local security company says having a security camera is good, but where you put it is key. Nearly every surveillance video is of the top of someone’s head, but […]
Surveillance Video Was Properly Admitted, Court Rules
A three-judge appellate panel in the Seventh District recently affirmed the judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The judges ruled that Shawn Green was properly convicted on charges of felonious assault, assault, resisting arrest and possession of cocaine. Green challenged the trial court’s decision to admit video surveillance footage of the incident leading to his arrest. According to the factual and procedural history provided by the Seventh District, Officers Quinn and Mulligan responded to a call about an armed man who was fighting with two females in a bar in Youngstown on March 15, 2012. The officers entered the bar and approached Green from two different directions. Quinn testified that she could see a “bulge” in Green’s pocket and believed it was a firearm. As she approached, Quinn reached for the suspected gun but Green turned and punched her in the throat, causing her head to hit the wall behind her. Quinn tried to subdue Green with her Taser as she was falling but accidentally hit Mulligan. Quinn passed out and when she regained consciousness she said she saw Mulligan struggling to control Green. Mulligan testified that, due to his struggle with Green, he did not initially realize that he had been struck by the Taser. Additional officers eventually responded to the scene and, together, they were able to subdue Green. The bulge in his pocket turned out to be marijuana, cocaine and packaging baggies. Quinn was treated for a back sprain, neck sprain and contusions. […]