I'm very confused about security/nanny camera laws.

[The Last American Hero]

I do some security(BSIS card) side work, and so far I've heard just about every different angle on what is legal to record, and where and if you need to post signs, and just how much that sign needs to ruin your otherwise lovely yard, or living room, or restaurant.

I hear audio is illegal but what about all those 'sting' TV shows? Is their some special 'press' pass on that? Or does the DA just decline to go after the show that caught a child molester and its only a misdemeanor anyways?

Now I just heard from an actual (sleazy) lawyer that you need to post signs for even just video to be not 'eavesdropping' even in your own home.

I'm mostly asking for laws if you wanted to use the recordings in Civil court, and what is legal to record without committing a misdemeanor just for recording, like if tenants or customers are causing damages.

[Librarian]

This looks like a place to start: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/cali...-recording-law

[Samuelx]

I do some security(BSIS card) side work, and so far I've heard just about every different angle on what is legal to record, and where and if you need to post signs, and just how much that sign needs to ruin your otherwise lovely yard, or living room, or restaurant.

I hear audio is illegal but what about all those 'sting' TV shows? Is their some special 'press' pass on that? Or does the DA just decline to go after the show that caught a child molester and its only a misdemeanor anyways?

Now I just heard from an actual (sleazy) lawyer that you need to post signs for even just video to be not 'eavesdropping' even in your own home.

I'm mostly asking for laws if you wanted to use the recordings in Civil court, and what is legal to record without committing a misdemeanor just for recording, like if tenants or customers are causing damages.

Has NOTHING to do with this, right?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=953393

[The Last American Hero]

"Has NOTHING to do with this, right?"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=953393

WHY YES IT DOES! but whole 'logger' issue now understood and not 'an issue' anymore.

But I do want to rig the crib with some cameras, especially since I'll be out of town and/or working long days.

[JoshuaS]

Note states vary. CA only allows audio if both parties consent (with some exceptions of course) whereas in VA only one party needs to consent. Sting shows can be fake, in a different state, etc.

[jeremiah12]

I do some security(BSIS card) side work, and so far I've heard just about every different angle on what is legal to record, and where and if you need to post signs, and just how much that sign needs to ruin your otherwise lovely yard, or living room, or restaurant.

I hear audio is illegal but what about all those 'sting' TV shows? Is their some special 'press' pass on that? Or does the DA just decline to go after the show that caught a child molester and its only a misdemeanor anyways?

Now I just heard from an actual (sleazy) lawyer that you need to post signs for even just video to be not 'eavesdropping' even in your own home.

I'm mostly asking for laws if you wanted to use the recordings in Civil court, and what is legal to record without committing a misdemeanor just for recording, like if tenants or customers are causing damages.

Google is your friend.

In a very quick search this is what I found: http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-l...alifornia.html

And: http://www.palmvid.com/content/suppo...recording.html

In short, audio recording is out unless both parties consent. This is even if the parties are in a public place.

Video recording in general is fine without getting consent as long as the person doing the recording is on public property, their own property, or property they have legal permission to be on while video recording another person that was visible and had no expectation of privacy (like in a locker room or restroom).

About the "sting" TV shows, most are done in conjunction with LE. They are under a different set of rules. Our criminal law system is mostly public, so most of the time, what you are seeing on TV is the footage that can be released after the person has been either convicted or pled out. It becomes a matter of public record. If the person was not yet convicted or was declared not guilty by a jury, then their image will be blurred out and they will not be identified by their real name. Sometimes the studio will pay them to sign a release so they can use the clip and their real name. You would be amazed at what some will do for money and to get on to TV.

Now, if you are asking in relation to this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=953393

You need more help than you can get from an Internet forum. You need real legal help from a real attorney. If this is the case, you are playing with fire and trying to play games based on technicalities of the law will get you burned. My aunt is a retired attorney, I know a few attorneys and judges and have watched them work. Judges can be harsh on anyone that tries to waste their time playing games. If you cannot afford a top notch attorney and are going it alone, going with legal aide, or a low priced attorney, you will loose big time.

This is not the time to mess around with landlords. There are a couple of ways a LL can get an immediate eviction without a 30 or 60 day notice. How do I know? It happened to my neighbor? He was renting the house and followed all the rules. He came home one day and was met with a 48 hour notice to vacate. It was a long complicated story but had nothing to do with the neighbor; but 48 hours later a sheriff deputy was there to make sure they were out. The house had a new owner, but the mother of the previous owner, though not the current owner, now lived in it.

So if the OP is related to your other post, just move out now and stop playing games before you dig a huge hole and end up black listed so no one rents to you.

But if you insist on playing legal games pay for a real lawyer or at least do the next best thing and go here: http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/

At least you can ask your real question without beating around the bush.

[jeremiah12]

"Has NOTHING to do with this, right?"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=953393

WHY YES IT DOES! but whole 'logger' issue now understood and not 'an issue' anymore.

But I do want to rig the crib with some cameras, especially since I'll be out of town and/or working long days.

I think you will find that inside, it will be illegal unless you have the consent of all who live inside. If you are the only tenant, then it is legal but place a sign, the type you can get at your local Home Depot on your door and also tell everyone that comes in they are being taped. That way, everyone that comes in when you are around know they are being taped.

If you are the sole renter, and only record when away, then the signs are not needed. The signs are just meant for a deterant. Many places have the signs but no video taping.

[JoshuaS]

Cameras and even audio recording of intruders in your own home requires no notice/consent, since they have no legal claim to expect privacy. So you are making no intrusion on them.

But recording tenants is another matter. They do have a right to privacy in their home. You may own the title to the property, but it is their legal residence.

The three criteria used in CA to determine if a camera violates the constitutional (California Constitution) right to privacy are

1) It constitutes an intrusion. 2) It intrudes in a location or context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 3) It outweighs other interests by the gravity of the alleged violation.


CA Appeals Court ruled that a law requiring video surveillance of online activities in internet cafes was legal. Expectation of privacy in a retail establishment was non existent in that case!


The PC specifies

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.


Pretty dang sure that "in the home I just broke into" would qualify there...

Also

633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
Section 653m.


Note these all apply to recording eavesdropping on communications, not so much to audioless video (653m has to do with prostitution...cops want to be able to get you for solicitation or hooking over the phone)

[JoshuaS]

audio recording can be done in a public place if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, otherwise live coverage of just about anything would be illegal

[RickD427]

There's no specific significance to any sign.

Please give a close read to Penal Code section 632. It spells out the rules for recording. The bottom line is that if you record a "Confidential Communication" (with a few exceptions), you have committed a misdemeanor.

it's an open question whether or not the posting of a sign would be adequate to remove a the "Confidential Communication" element of the violation. I don't know of any case law on the point. I would think it dependent on the prominence of the sign, and the likelihood that the person being recorded would view and understand the sign.

Also please note:

1) That Penal Code section 631(c) prohibits you from using an improperly made recording as evidence in any court proceeding.

2) That Penal Code section 637.2 allows any person who was unlawfully recorded to sue the person making the recording for $5,000.00 without them having to prove any damages. That pretty much makes for an easy "win" in small claims court.