What is the "expectation of privacy" test in a USA home that is not

[Conradt]

What is the "expectation of privacy" test in a USA home that is not yours?

I'm trying to better understand *how* Dateline NBC can air "To Catch a
Predator" videos of suspects, where the videos are taken not in a "public
place" and not in "your residence" but in the residence of someone else.

Googling for "expectations of privacy" in the USA, I find plenty of
examples but not that particular example of being in someone eles's home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

The escalating examples I would wonder about are:
a) Living room of someone elses' house
b) Bedroom of someone else's house
c) Bathroom of someone else's house

I'm not talking about someone renting from a landlord where the landlord
installed a camera, or in a hotel room - but when you *visit* someone
else's house.

The best I can find is the Katz vs US but it is about a "telephone booth".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347

What is the "expectation of privacy" (with respect to being videotaped and
then published for profit on network tv) for someone in someone else's
home?

Where is the legal precedent?

[Gordon Burditt]

> What is the "expectation of privacy" test in a USA home that is not yours?
>
> I'm trying to better understand *how* Dateline NBC can air "To Catch a
> Predator" videos of suspects, where the videos are taken not in a "public
> place" and not in "your residence" but in the residence of someone else.

I thought the "To Catch A Predator" series were filmed
at a location that was either:

(a) rented/leased by NBC from the owner of the property.
(b) purchased by NBC from the owner of the property.
or
(c) borrowed by NBC from the owner of the property (which probably
amounts to "rented" except perhaps the amount of rent is $0 or is
done for some kind of goods/services in return). I think there was
a group dedicated to tracking down predators (and pretending to be
victims) working with NBC, and members of that group might lend NBC
their own home gratis with permission to film if it gets a predator
off the streets.

So it's not "the residence of someone else", it's "NBC's residence".

> Googling for "expectations of privacy" in the USA, I find plenty of
> examples but not that particular example of being in someone eles's home.

The "expectations of privacy" apply to searches by *GOVERNMENT* (usually
police or police-like agences like the FBI or Postal Inspectors).

> The escalating examples I would wonder about are:
> a) Living room of someone elses' house
> b) Bedroom of someone else's house
> c) Bathroom of someone else's house

What about:
(a) Living room of *NBC's* rented or purchased house
(b) Bedroom of *NBC's* rented or purchased house
(c) Bathroom of *NBC's* rented or purchased house

as it appears that the house involved is owned or rented by NBC,
not my sister or some other 9th party.

> I'm not talking about someone renting from a landlord where the landlord
> installed a camera, or in a hotel room - but when you *visit* someone
> else's house.

The predators visited *NBC's* house. NBC made the video. NBC
published the video. NBC gave the video to the police (willingly
or not, I don't know, but I think NBC intended from the beginning
to turn the evidence over to the police for prosecution).


If I put a bunch of cameras in *MY* house and you visit me, I don't
see where you have much of a complaint if a video of it ends up on
YouTube, especially if it shows you committing a crime. If I choose
to hand those videos over to the police, fine for me and tough for
you.

> The best I can find is the Katz vs US but it is about a "telephone booth".
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347
>
> What is the "expectation of privacy" (with respect to being videotaped and
> then published for profit on network tv) for someone in someone else's
> home?

NBC is not a government. Putting a videotape on a TV network is not
a search by a government.

I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that I won't make the
video tape public if you burgle my house, either.

It is just possible, under *COPYRIGHT* law, that you have a case
against me for copyright infringement. I hope not, and videos of
burglaries, holdups, and breakins regularly appear on local TV news
(video created by the store of the store's property and the burglar
on the store's property, and presumably given to the TV news by the
store). I suppose that a claim of copyright infringement by the
burglar amounts to a confession that they are the burglar shown in
the video, making a conviction for burglary a slam-dunk. It might
be a slam-dunk anyway, depending on the quality of the video.

> Where is the legal precedent?

One area which may be problematic is if I invite you to visit my
home (with you possibly being my boyfriend/girlfriend), you do (a)
nothing illegal, and (b) masturbate in the bathroom, alone and/or
with me, and I put *THAT* on YouTube as a surprise to you, I may
be in trouble under copyright law and/or "revenge porn" laws.

[David L. Martel]

Conradt,

Not sure I follow your question. Why would you expect privacy when in
someone else's home? I suspect that bathrooms may be a special case but
other than that I don't see it. So, what's your problem? Or is this
hypothetical.?

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Roy]

A bathroom is a special place but there are exceptions

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-4th-amendment-is-privacy-ever-assured

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> So it's not "the residence of someone else", it's "NBC's residence".

Um... er... that's exactly what I said.

The question is, in the USA, what is the "reasonable expectation of
privacy" when you are in someone elses' residence (in this case, a
residence almost certainly rented by NBC)?

It is well known what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is for your
own home (a man's home is his castle). It is also well known what the
reasonable expectation of privacy is for a "rented" home, where it's still
your castle if you are the one who rented it and if the landlord is the
one who installed the camera. It's also well known what is a reasonable
expectation of privacy in a phone booth (which was the case law I cited).

But what is the reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in someone
elses home?

That "someone else" can be ANYONE.
a. It could be your best friend's home
b. It could be your boss' home
c. It could be a home rented by NBC
etc.

It's a "home"; it's just not "your" home.

Can they install a camera in that home?
Where can they NOT install the camera?

PS: I don't want sheer guesses. Anyone can guess. I already have a guess.
Nobody's answer means anything unless it's accompanied by case law.

The *closest* case law I can find is this (but it doesn't really apply
because of the dual complications):
- http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/02/us/high-court-curbs-claim-on-privacy-
in-a-home.html

NOTE: Any answer sans a legal cite is worthless because it's just a guess.

[Conradt]

David L. Martel wrote:

> Not sure I follow your question. Why would you expect privacy when in
> someone else's home? I suspect that bathrooms may be a special case but
> other than that I don't see it. So, what's your problem? Or is this
> hypothetical.?

What's my problem?
I don't have a problem; I simply seek the legal answer to the question.

We already know that a man's home is his castle:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/case.html

The question is pretty simple and straightforward.
There are no hidden "gotchas" in the question.

Can a person install cameras in (a) the living room, (b) bedroom, and (c)
bathroom of "his" home (i.e, his castle) and then "invite" you to his home
and then publish recordings of you that you didn't consent to (especially
for financial gain)?

That's what NBC is doing, in effect.

Guesses to the answer are totally worthless. I can guess too.

Any answer on misc.legal sans a legal cite is worthless, simply because
anyone can guess. Please do not guess. I already have a guess.

What matters is the law, and in this case, the Supreme Court of the USA is
all that matters, since we're talking US Constitutional Rights here.

For example, in the USA, a "man's home is his castle", so, he has an
expectation of privacy *in* his home. The police, or NBC News, for
example, can't install a hidden camera without a warrant, no matter
*where* that camera is hidden (whether in the living room, bedroom, or
bathroom).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR THE HOME:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/homeiscastle.htm

[Conradt]

Roy wrote:

> A bathroom is a special place but there are exceptions
> https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-4th-amendment-is-privacy-ever-
assured

Thanks for being the ONLY ONE who actually provided a legal cite!
(Any answer is worthless without a cite simply because this is a case law
question.)

Going to that suggested web site, I find the story is:
a. Couple goes into bathroom of a place of public business
b. Police break into the convenience store bathroom
c. Guy gets arrested for drugs

I don't see how this is even *remotely* applicable to the question.
Sure, a "building" is involved, but I'm asking about a private residence,
and your cite is about a public restroom.

Specifically, in that case: "The court determined that since Hill decided
to share the public restroom with a female companion he forfeited his
privacy rights. Whatever the act that occurred inside, it was a use for
which the bathroom was not designed, according to the court. Hence, there
could be no reasonable expectation of privacy by the two people."

All that case shows is that if you're in a public restroom, but if you
don't use it as a public restroom, then you have no reasonable expectation
of privacy.

OK. That makes sense. It's public. And it's not a bathroom. Hence it's
public.

But what on earth does that have to do with my very simple question?

[Gordon Burditt]

>> So it's not "the residence of someone else", it's "NBC's residence".
>
> Um... er... that's exactly what I said.

No, you made it appear as though it were some 9th party's residence.

> The question is, in the USA, what is the "reasonable expectation of
> privacy" when you are in someone elses' residence (in this case, a
> residence almost certainly rented by NBC)?

"reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to where a *GOVERNMENT*
can install cameras. It does not apply to where the *OWNER* can
install cameras. It does not apply to whether the *OWNER* can make
a profit on the pictures those cameras take.

The Constitution limits what *GOVERNMENT* is allowed to do.

> It is well known what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is for your
> own home (a man's home is his castle). It is also well known what the
> reasonable expectation of privacy is for a "rented" home, where it's still
> your castle if you are the one who rented it and if the landlord is the
> one who installed the camera. It's also well known what is a reasonable
> expectation of privacy in a phone booth (which was the case law I cited).
>
> But what is the reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in someone
> elses home?
>
> That "someone else" can be ANYONE.
> a. It could be your best friend's home
> b. It could be your boss' home
> c. It could be a home rented by NBC
> etc.
>
> It's a "home"; it's just not "your" home.


> Can they install a camera in that home?

The *GOVERNMENT* needs a warrant to install cameras there, too.
Unless they get permission from the owner. The *OWNER* does
not need permission from himself.

> Where can they NOT install the camera?

The *GOVERNMENT* can't install cameras inside the home without a
warrant. The *OWNER* can install cameras anywhere he wants.

> PS: I don't want sheer guesses. Anyone can guess. I already have a guess.
> Nobody's answer means anything unless it's accompanied by case law.
>
> The *closest* case law I can find is this (but it doesn't really apply
> because of the dual complications):
> - http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/02/us/high-court-curbs-claim-on-privacy-
> in-a-home.html
>
> NOTE: Any answer sans a legal cite is worthless because it's just a guess.

Read the first and 4th amendments to the US constitution.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> If I put a bunch of cameras in *MY* house and you visit me, I don't see
> where you have much of a complaint if a video of it ends up on YouTube,

What you wrote above is the question in a nutshell.

In the USA, can you put a camera in YOUR house and then invite me to visit
you and then you record and publish on the Internet our interaction
WITHOUT ever asking me for consent (or vice versa)?

Certainly, in California, you can't even record individuals in your own
*car* without their consent, but I don't know about in your home (which is
why I'm asking the question).

New California Law Allows Video Cameras In Car – What It Means
http://thelosangelescriminaldefenseblog.com/new-california-law-allows-
video-cameras-in-car-what-it-means/

PS: Any answer without a cite is useless as that would merely be a guess.

[Gordon Burditt]

>> Not sure I follow your question. Why would you expect privacy when in
>> someone else's home? I suspect that bathrooms may be a special case but
>> other than that I don't see it. So, what's your problem? Or is this
>> hypothetical.?
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Dave M.
>>
>>
>
> A bathroom is a special place but there are exceptions
>
> https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-4th-amendment-is-privacy-ever-assured

The 4th amendment is a restriction on what *GOVERNMENT* can do. It
says absolutely nothing about whether the store clerk can enter the
bathroom or install cameras there.

In Conradt's original question, NBC is not a police agency.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> No, you made it appear as though it were some 9th party's residence.

Do you argue just for the sake of argument?
What's your point?
The question is pretty clear.

A reasonable expectation of privacy has been granted to private residences.
For example, read this case law:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/case.html

This is a quote from that cite:
"to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that
he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and
that his expectation is reasonable".

My "guess" is that a person visiting someone else's home does have a
reasonable expectation of privacy. But I'm looking for case law that
either supports or refutes my guess.

In the case of NBC Dateline, the person who was videotaped has absolutely
no idea the private residence is rented by a business, so, my guess is
that any reasonable person would have an expectation that it is a private
residence (unless there is a sign on the door that says this is a public
commercial property).

Not even you could say that the people who visited that house had any
expectation whatsoever that they were visiting a private residence.

You seem to intimate that they lost all their Constitutional Rights simply
because they are "accused" (not all were convicted nor even charged!) of a
crime.

So for you to intimate that everyone who is accused of a crime instantly
loses all their rights is just crazy.

The fact the home is rented by NBC does not change the fact that the
defendants have every reasonable expectation that the home is a private
residence.

Given that any reasonable person would assume that the home is a private
residence, my question is what is the expectation of privacy in a private
residence.

The question has nothing, per se, to do with NBC; it has everything to do
with case law on what the expectation of privacy is for guests in a
private residence.

We already know that guests in a hotel have every reasonable expectation
of privacy:
A Motel-Sized Victory for Privacy at the Supreme Court
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/an-motel-sized-victory-
for-privacy-at-the-supreme-court/396542/

The question is what is case law on the right to privacy in a private
residence when you are simply "visiting" that private residence?

(It's a simple question and not at all as tricky as you make it out to be.)

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to where a *GOVERNMENT* can
> install cameras. It does not apply to where the *OWNER* can install
> cameras. It does not apply to whether the *OWNER* can make a profit on
> the pictures those cameras take.
>
> The Constitution limits what *GOVERNMENT* is allowed to do.

This is a perfectly valid point.
And, I grant you, it's an IMPORTANT distinction.

So that changes how I ask the same question.

QUESTION:
What are the protections you have protecting you from someone secretly
recording you and publishing that recording without your consent when you
visit them in their private residence?

Remember, we already know that in many states, you can't even tape a phone
conversation without both parties agreeing to the recording.
Summary of Consent Requirements for Taping Telephone Conversations
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

And, I already cited California law where you can't record video or audio
in your vehicle without informing all the passengers.

So the LEGAL QUESTION here is simply what is the case law that applies
when you visit (what you have every reason to believe is) a private home
where the legal tenant of that home secretly records you and then
publishes that recording sans your consent on the Internet?

PS: An answer sans a case law cite is just a guess.

[Conradt]

Conradt wrote:

> Not even you could say that the people who visited that house had any
> expectation whatsoever that they were visiting a private residence.

Typo alert!

Not even you could say that the people who visited that house had any

expectation whatsoever that they were *NOT* visiting a private residence.

[Conradt]

> "to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that
> he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and
> that his expectation is reasonable".

I now agree that I erroneously included the government in my question,
when, in fact, the government has nothing to do whatsoever with my
question.

Mea culpa.

You have kindly shown that the fourth amendment does not apply to *any*
home in my question, since my question is NOT about the government
overstepping its bounds.

My question is about a private (or commercial) individual overstepping
their bounds.

Hence my question has been necessarily refined, because it's the same
question, but I leave the government (and the Constitution) out of the
question.

What does US case law say about what protections a private individual has
about being covertly recorded and having that recording published wholly
without his consent, when he is visiting what he has every reason to
believe is a private residence?

[Gordon Burditt]

>> If I put a bunch of cameras in *MY* house and you visit me, I don't see
>> where you have much of a complaint if a video of it ends up on YouTube,
>
> What you wrote above is the question in a nutshell.

That wasn't the original question. The original question talked
about videos used to prosecute people for a crime. Anything involving
the Constitution is simply not applicable to the answer to the question
as stated above, which does not involve government at all, as the
Constitution is a restriction on what *GOVERNMENT* can do.

> In the USA, can you put a camera in YOUR house and then invite me to visit
> you and then you record and publish on the Internet our interaction
> WITHOUT ever asking me for consent (or vice versa)?

The constitution of the USA has nothing to say about that. Any
cite talking about constitutional amendments is not relevant to the
question.

> Certainly, in California, you can't even record individuals in your own
> *car* without their consent, but I don't know about in your home (which is
> why I'm asking the question).

> New California Law Allows Video Cameras In Car – What It Means
> http://thelosangelescriminaldefenseblog.com/new-california-law-allows-
> video-cameras-in-car-what-it-means/

That should give you a hint that there is no answer for "in the USA",
and that the answer may be different for East Benbrook and West Benbrook.

> PS: Any answer without a cite is useless as that would merely be a guess.

It is unlikely that there is any case law regarding the First
Amendment restricting the actions of private citizens since the
First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ..." and
it's blatantly obvious.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> The 4th amendment is a restriction on what *GOVERNMENT* can do. It says
> absolutely nothing about whether the store clerk can enter the bathroom
> or install cameras there.
>
> In Conradt's original question, NBC is not a police agency.

As I just said in a prior post, I THANK YOU for pointing out that I

erroneously included the government in my question, when, in fact, the

government is not involved.

Mea culpa.

The question is therefore the same question, but worded totally
differently, becuase teh dilemma remains.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> That wasn't the original question. The original question talked about
> videos used to prosecute people for a crime. Anything involving the
> Constitution is simply not applicable to the answer to the question as
> stated above, which does not involve government at all, as the
> Constitution is a restriction on what *GOVERNMENT* can do.

Thank you for your Constitution insight, as I stand corrected.

The original question (erroneously) *assumed* Constitutional rights were
being abused; however you disabused me of that simply because the
government was never involved in the original question.

There only two parties involved in the original question.
1. The private individual visiting what he thinks is a private residence
2. The legal tenant of that private residence (who recorded & published it)

So the question remains the same, despite my egregious error in thinking
that the Constitution was involved.

THE QUESTION IS:

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> The constitution of the USA has nothing to say about that. Any cite
> talking about constitutional amendments is not relevant to the question.

I agree.
And I thank you for correcting my error.

I erroneously thought the Constitution would protect us from a tenant of a
private home recording us in that private home and then publishing that
recording, all sans our consent.

So, are we protected?

What US protections does a private individual have against the legal
tenant of a private residence recording and publishing that recording of
us inside their private home without our consent?

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> That should give you a hint that there is no answer for "in the USA",
> and that the answer may be different for East Benbrook and West
> Benbrook.

Often both Federal and State law apply even when the Constitution does not.

For example, we already know that recording someone in a public place and
then publishing that recording is subject to Federal law in addition to
State law, where state law can only make the conditions stricter, not
looser than the Federal law.
https://www.videomaker.com/article/15619-recording-in-public-places-and-
your-first-amendment-rights

So, I grant you that the recording of a private individual in a private
home and then publishing that recording sans consent will likely be
governed by both state and federal law.

But does anyone on misc.legal know of ANY case law that we can start with
to better understand what a reasonable person should expect by way of
protection from a private individual covertly recording and publishing you
in "their" residence in ANY state?

[Gordon Burditt]

>> Not sure I follow your question. Why would you expect privacy when in
>> someone else's home? I suspect that bathrooms may be a special case but
>> other than that I don't see it. So, what's your problem? Or is this
>> hypothetical.?
>
> What's my problem?
> I don't have a problem; I simply seek the legal answer to the question.
>
> We already know that a man's home is his castle:
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/case.html

Which does not apply to your girlfriend installing cameras in your
castle. That may be illegal, but it's not because of the US
Constitution.

> The question is pretty simple and straightforward.
> There are no hidden "gotchas" in the question.
>
> Can a person install cameras in (a) the living room, (b) bedroom, and (c)
> bathroom of "his" home (i.e, his castle) and then "invite" you to his home
> and then publish recordings of you that you didn't consent to (especially
> for financial gain)?
>
> That's what NBC is doing, in effect.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about that. The Constitution
is a restriction on *GOVERNMENT*, not NBC.

> Guesses to the answer are totally worthless. I can guess too.
>
> Any answer on misc.legal sans a legal cite is worthless, simply because
> anyone can guess. Please do not guess. I already have a guess.
>
> What matters is the law, and in this case, the Supreme Court of the USA is
> all that matters, since we're talking US Constitutional Rights here.

No, we are *NOT* talking US Constitutional Rights here. The
Constitution restricts the actions of the *GOVERNMENT*. NBC is not
part of the government, and in the question above, the government
is not involved.

There are likely 3 separate issues here:

(1) May the video be made in the first place?
(2) May the video be published?
(3) May the video be published for profit?

You could end up with some odd results: it may be illegal to make
the video in the first place, but if a private citizen made it and
the police get hold of it, say, because I stole it and got caught,
then the police might be able to use it as evidence against the
people in the video, as well as against me for stealing it and
against the people who made the video.

> For example, in the USA, a "man's home is his castle", so, he has an
> expectation of privacy *in* his home.

"expectation of privacy" is a term that applies to snooping by the
*GOVERNMENT*.

> The police, or NBC News, for
> example, can't install a hidden camera without a warrant, no matter
> *where* that camera is hidden (whether in the living room, bedroom, or
> bathroom).

The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about whether or
not NBC News can install hidden cameras in your home. NBC is not
the government. The Constitution is a restriction on what the
government can do.

> CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR THE HOME:
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/homeiscastle.htm

This only applies to things the *GOVERNMENT* is allowed to do.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> This only applies to things the *GOVERNMENT* is allowed to do.

Thank you for explaining this, which I agree with!

I already agreed many times that you are correct
in that I was totally wrong in *assuming* that the
Constitution played any role in the question I was
asking.

The question has been rephrased to remove the
incorrect assumption that the Constitution applied.

THE REPHRASED QUESTION:
What does US (Federal or State) case law say about what

protections a private individual has about being covertly

recorded and having that recording published without his

[Gordon Burditt]

>> That wasn't the original question. The original question talked about
>> videos used to prosecute people for a crime. Anything involving the
>> Constitution is simply not applicable to the answer to the question as
>> stated above, which does not involve government at all, as the
>> Constitution is a restriction on what *GOVERNMENT* can do.
>
> Thank you for your Constitution insight, as I stand corrected.
>
> The original question (erroneously) *assumed* Constitutional rights were
> being abused; however you disabused me of that simply because the
> government was never involved in the original question.

The original question asked about "To Catch A Predator", and the
government did get involved when NBC handed the videos over to the
police for prosecution. A few questions raised around the time the
show aired included "isn't that entrapment?" (no, the police weren't
involved until later) and "the predator didn't DO anything illegal
on the video, and nobody underage was present, so why is he in
jail?" (well, it's possible a very naive man wanted to deliver a
lecture on safety to an underage girl he expected to meet, but the
chat room logs rather indicated that wasn't why he was there).

The questions "is it legal to make this video?", "Can this video be
used as evidence in a court?" and "Can this video be published?" are
very separate and may end up with some funny answers. For example, if
you make a video of Joe doing something illegal, I steal the video
along with all the electronics in your house, and the police catch me with
the loot, Joe, you, and me may end up in the same prison, Joe for doing
something illegal, you, for making the video, and me for stealing your
stuff, but the video can be used as evidence because the police had no
hand in making it and there was no illegal search to uncover it.

> There only two parties involved in the original question.
> 1. The private individual visiting what he thinks is a private residence
> 2. The legal tenant of that private residence (who recorded & published it)

> So the question remains the same, despite my egregious error in thinking
> that the Constitution was involved.
>
> THE QUESTION IS:
> What does US case law say about what protections a private individual has
> about being covertly recorded and having that recording published wholly
> without his consent, when he is visiting what he has every reason to
> believe is a private residence?

Don't make a big deal about private residence vs. corporate-leased
residence. It doesn't make a difference anyway. You cannot tell
whether a given residence is owned, leased, leased by the employee's
employer for him to live in, or whether it's government-owned
"Section 8" housing for the poor by looking at it. A church
(corporation) might own the housing your friend lives in because
her father is the pastor for the church, and provides that housing
to the pastor as part of his payment for the job. So no, you really
don't have a reasonable expectation that something is owned vs.
leased, or corporate-owned vs. personally-owned. Even some of the
people who live there may not know. But it doesn't matter if it's
still being used as a residence.


If you want protection from someone *PUBLISHING* a video of you
without your permission, look at copyright law. I'm sure there are
plenty of cases where a filmmaker got in trouble for including
someone who didn't sign a model release in a film. There may also
be some cases where the model signed a release for the movie filming,
but not for the hidden camera in her dressing room, when the release
was for "all photos taken on this location on this date" (so it
technically covers the dressing-room photos), or a filmmaker ignoring
a contract with the model / actress that no nude scenes be included
in the final production. Oh, yes, there are also plenty of rules
about underage models.

Copyright law is generally more severe if the infringer is making
a profit on his infringement activities. Copyright law requires
that a transfer of a copyright (say, from author to publisher) must
be in writing.

I do think, though, that under some circumstances, a store may give
a film of an incident at the store caught on security cameras to a
TV news station without either of them getting into trouble. It
happens a lot. There may not even be any crime committed, so the
police aren't interested in it. Some videos show accidental fires,
or someone having medical problems, or trying to walk through a
closed door. Well, a store isn't exactly a residence. I have seen
home security cameras on the TV news, but the published ones are
of someone stealing packages outside the front door, or damaging
the car in the driveway, which aren't inside the residence.

I don't know what would happen if the homeowner had an inside
security camera, someone rang the doorbell and was invited in, then
attacked the resident. Can that go on the TV news? I think I have
seen one taken from a nanny-cam with the babysitter abusing a child.

People in these security camera photos may be reluctant to object
since claiming copyright infringmenet involves confessing that they
are the person performing the actions in the video, making prosecuting
any crimes they are shown committing a slam-dunk.

You aren't likely to get much practical protection against Joe
inviting his boyfriends over and making sex tapes of their activities
in Joe's bed (with and without Joe present), if Joe keeps his tape
collection private. If nobody but Joe knows the tapes exist, it's
hard to prove illegal recording in court. That will change if he
gets mad at one of his boyfriends and posts one of the tapes, or
somehow someone discovers his tape collection.

Depending on various pornography laws, it may be illegal to take
photographs of someone, even yourself, urinating or defecating.

I think the Supreme Court has recognized that films of at least
some sex acts have some kind of "artistic value", but some states
may have laws against filming someone having sex without knowledge
of the filming. This wouldn't apply to NBC as no actual sex was
filmed. Some states also have some specific laws about upskirt
cameras, which appear to cover both public and private areas.

There may be laws, aimed at the movie-making industry, requiring
releases and possibly compensation for people in the movie before
publishing the movie. There has to be some exception for crowd
scenes and photos taken from so far away (e.g. the top of the Empire
State Building, of people on the ground, without a telephoto lens,
or from the International Space Station, with or without a telephoto
lens) that no one is identifiable.

There are laws against blackmail. Someone with a collection of sex
tapes may cross the line if he decides to use a threat of posting
one to get his way.

[Conradt]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> "isn't that entrapment?" (no, the police weren't
> involved until later)

Just as you informed me that government doesn't play a role in this
question, neither does entrapment.

> and "the predator didn't DO anything illegal
> on the video, and nobody underage was present, so why is he in
> jail?" (well, it's possible a very naive man wanted to deliver a
> lecture on safety to an underage girl he expected to meet, but the
> chat room logs rather indicated that wasn't why he was there).

None of these topics have anything do do with the question.

> The questions "is it legal to make this video?", "Can this video be
> used as evidence in a court?" and "Can this video be published?" are
> very separate and may end up with some funny answers. For example, if
> you make a video of Joe doing something illegal, I steal the video
> along with all the electronics in your house, and the police catch me
with
> the loot, Joe, you, and me may end up in the same prison, Joe for doing
> something illegal, you, for making the video, and me for stealing your
> stuff, but the video can be used as evidence because the police had no
> hand in making it and there was no illegal search to uncover it.

Case law on the legality of making and publishing a covert video in a home
that a reasonable person would consider to be a private residence is all
that this question is trying to ascertain.

Making the question more complicated by adding a condition that it is then
stolen is not only not answering the question - but it is an unnecessary
condition to what is, in effect, a very simple question.

> Don't make a big deal about private residence vs. corporate-leased
> residence. It doesn't make a difference anyway. You cannot tell
> whether a given residence is owned, leased, leased by the employee's
> employer for him to live in, or whether it's government-owned
> "Section 8" housing for the poor by looking at it.

Actually, case law may make a *huge* distinction between whether the
"building" would appear to be a private residence or a public residence.

For example, we already know that a public bathroom is treated differently
than a private bathroom (from cites I already provided).

And we know from case law that a person has an expectation of privacy in a
hotel, at least from the government. So we know that a hotel is treated
the same as your own castle in some ways.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hotel-guest-list-privacy-supreme-
court-ruling-119280

So it's not at all far fetched that what a reasonable person would presume
to be a private residence may be treated differently in the eyes of case
law than what a reasonable person would presume to be a corporate location.

> A church
> (corporation) might own the housing your friend lives in because
> her father is the pastor for the church, and provides that housing
> to the pastor as part of his payment for the job. So no, you really
> don't have a reasonable expectation that something is owned vs.
> leased, or corporate-owned vs. personally-owned. Even some of the
> people who live there may not know. But it doesn't matter if it's
> still being used as a residence.

You forget that the case law I cited says that it doesn't matter who
*owns* the residence. It matters who the legal tenant is of the residence,
and in this question, it's clear as day that any reasonable person would
assume that if they're visiting a private home, that the home is a private
residence.

We already know that case law distinguishes between videotaping in public
versus videotaping when a reasonable person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy (e.g., in their own home), so what we need to nail down is what
the reasonable person would expect (legally) by way of privacy in someone
else's home.

This is, after all the question, is it not?

> If you want protection from someone *PUBLISHING* a video of you
> without your permission, look at copyright law. I'm sure there are
> plenty of cases where a filmmaker got in trouble for including
> someone who didn't sign a model release in a film. There may also
> be some cases where the model signed a release for the movie filming,
> but not for the hidden camera in her dressing room, when the release
> was for "all photos taken on this location on this date" (so it
> technically covers the dressing-room photos), or a filmmaker ignoring
> a contract with the model / actress that no nude scenes be included
> in the final production. Oh, yes, there are also plenty of rules
> about underage models.

There's something untenable in your argument.

We all know that Hulk Hogan (aka Terry Bollea) received money for a
secretly recorded film of him being published which shows him cavorting
with Heather Cole.

The jury agreed that Gawker invaded Hogan’s privacy.
Do we know whose home that sex tape was filmed in?

> Copyright law is generally more severe if the infringer is making
> a profit on his infringement activities. Copyright law requires
> that a transfer of a copyright (say, from author to publisher) must
> be in writing.

I think the closest parallel is the Hulk Hogan case, where copyright law
isn't the issue. The issue is invasion of privacy.

Do we know whether the Hulk Hogan tape was filmed in a private residence?

[Conradt]

Conradt wrote:

> There's something untenable in your argument.
>
> We all know that Hulk Hogan (aka Terry Bollea) received money for a
> secretly recorded film of him being published which shows him cavorting
> with Heather Cole.
>
> The jury agreed that Gawker invaded Hogan’s privacy.
> Do we know whose home that sex tape was filmed in?

I read up on the Gawker case, and it seems the home was of Bubba the Love
Sponge, so, it was *not* Hulk Hogan's residence.

Yet (so far), Hulk Hogan won on "invasion of privacy" issues when a camera
secretly recorded what he did and said in that bedroom.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/06/hulk-hogan-gawker-lawsuit-
first-amendment-trial

The lawyers said "What we have objected to is Gawker’s use of a video that
was taken without Terry Bollea’s consent or knowledge,”

So this seems to be an example of case law, but it's complicated by the
fact that Hogan sued on complicated grounds such as the loss of revenue,
which a less-public private citizen would have less of a claim to.

[Conradt]

Conradt wrote:

> So this seems to be an example of case law, but it's complicated by the
> fact that Hogan sued on complicated grounds such as the loss of revenue,
> which a less-public private citizen would have less of a claim to.

Egads. This blow-by-blow description of the court process shows that this
particular case is immensely complex, so it might not be the case law I
was seeking...

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-
million-as-gawker-looks-to-appeal-004433

[Henry Jones]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:45:48 +0000, Conradt wrote:

> What is the "expectation of privacy" test in a USA home that is not
> yours?

This article clarifies a bit the answer to the question:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-stakes-in-hulk-
hogans-gawker-lawsuit

"Violations of privacy... are generally an issue of state law. ...the
First Amendment protects the publication of true facts about public
figures unless ...[they] are not of legitimate concern to the public."

Based on that interpretation:
a) It's illegal to videotape a person in a friend's home
b) If that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy

Furthermore, for a private citizen:
c) It's illegal to publish that videotape