红杏视频

Oregon law enforcement agents, acting without a warrant, surreptitiously installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner David Frank Lane鈥檚 home and used them to record the activities at and around his home over an uninterrupted monthlong period. Police could manipulate the cameras from afar to get a full picture not only of Petitioner鈥檚 comings and goings from his property but also who visited the home, when, and for how long.

The State argues that it can continuously watch our most private spaces鈥攐ur homes鈥攚ith no judicial oversight. It argues that pole-camera surveillance of homes does not constitute a search. Failing to recognize perpetual pole-camera surveillance as a search would leave Oregonians subject to constant, intrusive monitoring for any reason or no reason at all.

Our brief argues that pole-camera surveillance constitutes a search under the state and federal Constitutions. Pole-camera surveillance of a home reveals deeply private information and technological developments have greatly enhanced the surveillance capabilities of pole cameras, meaning surveillance significantly encroaches upon traditional spheres of privacy historically protected from government intrusion.

Oregon鈥檚 Constitution provides greater protections than the Fourth Amendment. Since the pole-camera surveillance in this case significantly impaired Petitioner's freedom from scrutiny, the Oregon Constitution鈥檚 Article I, Section 9 protections against unreasonable searches required police to obtain a warrant before conducting the surveillance. The Fourth Amendment also requires a warrant. We argue that the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 analysis in Chatrie v. United States applies to using a pole camera that tracks all 鈥減eople鈥檚 comings and goings鈥� at a residence constitutes. Under this analysis, pole-camera surveillance constitutes a search, and the Fourth Amendment required a warrant in this case.