Hi,My name is XXXXX XXXXX I'd be happy to answer your questions today.It is a violation of California law to use a hidden camcorder in a place where a person may be in a full or partial state of undress, even if the person is not in a full or partial state of undress. Cal. Pen. Code, Section 647. The one thing that might save her is the intent portion of the statute - she did not make the tape for purposes of arousal, or even for the purposes of catching someone undressed. She did it to catch a thief. So, it's possible that she might be able to avoid prosecution.As far as admissibility goes, evidence obtained in violation of state and federal wiretapping and recording laws cannot be used as evidence in court. The girl will be able to testify as to what she personally observed, but it is likely that the video will be suppressed.
Thanks for this thorough answer. 5 stars. May I ask: I write columns for the Sacramento Bee. While doing some broad searches yesterday (Friday), I ran across the Just Answer site and figured I'd give it a shot. What I'd like to know is this: What are the chances you and I can talk further so I can quote you if necessary? I'd want to cite you by full name, your practice, etc. If you are OK with this please let me know by contacting me at my e-mail,XXX@XXXXXX.XXX.
I'm pondering a column this in the context of two recent columns about privacy (here and here). We're pretty hypocritical about privacy (given that we want our own, but can be awfully nosy when it comes to office or neighborhood gossip, or the tabloids), and we have a contentious ongoing debate in Alameda County over a Sheriff's Department request to use drones for investigative work. Interestingly, the very same public worried about government spying and drones, etc, is going to say, "Fire the teacher!" They already have if you look at the comments to the media coverage linked in my initial question (here)However, if the evidence is inadmissable for whatever legal reasons regarding privacy violations, can you imagine the uproar from those same folks championing privacy rights? It speaks to the protections of the 4th Amendment, wherein it is tacitly understood that for reasons of "the greater good," sometimes, the guilty get away with it, and my guess is, the California law, in part, tries to mimic this fundamental 4th Amendment premise on the local level, regarding privacy violations among individuals or within the private sector (as opposed to government). And on a larger level, it brings us back to these same conflicts regarding our hypocrisy when it comes to privacy. In order to convict, there are procedures that must be adhered with regard to privacy. Just how serious are we in our allegiance to the fundamental concept? Is the teacher guilty? Yes. Can the video be used? No. And then it becomes a matter of he said she said. In a court of law, that's not good enough (he could say he was searching for drugs, or something). What's more important here: Getting the conviction or protecting privacy?
What do you think?
Feel free to contact me and perhaps provide a phone number where I might call you if you want to talk.
Here's mine:(NNN) NNN-NNNN/p>
Thanks in advance,
Here are the external links in case the embedding gets quirky on you.
Again, thank you for your reply. Tell the website moderators to give you a raise! (5 stars again!)
I understand and appreciate the desire/need to preserve anonymity. On background, the information you provided, including this follow-up answer, is extremely helpful. An attorney up the street (though not a criminal lawyer) mentioned the fruit of the poison tree doctrine, as well. And he mentioned something called "extrinsic evidence" – evidence that informs the true witness – as a way to make an alternative argument to convince a judge that somehow, there's a way to get what was seen on video into evidence. I intend to call the D-A's office this week and hopefully track down a good criminal attorney in the area for their input. Your detailed responses have provided the basis for plenty of questions to help flesh out the matter. I am deeply appreciative.
Now we'll see if the editors are up for the idea. For me, it's all about challenging our perceptions and opinions of readers. As it may not surprise anyone, people like the law when it affirms their notions of right and wrong. When it doesn't, they tell lawyer jokes.
I will try to notify you here about the fate of the column.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).