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,[email protected]
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.