None that I am aware of. Tell the thief he will need to file suit from prison.
Is there a requirement to post a sign for security camera in private home.
Yesterday a person contracted by my sons landlord to do some work on the rental house was caught on video searching thru sons bedroom.
The cop told my son since he did not have a sign posted about camera the person could sue him. I have searched Ocga and Columbus muni codes and can not find any reference to need to post a sign. Anyone know of such a code.
The cop told my son since he did not have a sign posted about camera the person could sue him. I have searched Ocga and Columbus muni codes and can not find any reference to need to post a sign. Anyone know of such a code.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
The law seems to pretty clearly state that he CAN video tape people in his house without their consent and does not include any requirement to provide any sort of notification.§ 16-11-62. Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message
It shall be unlawful for:
(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;
(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:
(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;
(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;
(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded; or
(D) For a law enforcement officer or his or her agent to use a device in the lawful performance of his or her official duties to observe, photograph, videotape, or record the activities of persons that occur in the presence of such officer or his or her agent;
(3) Any person to go on or about the premises of another or any private place, except as otherwise provided by law, for the purpose of invading the privacy of others by eavesdropping upon their conversations or secretly observing their activities;
(4) Any person intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication;
(5) Any person to divulge to any unauthorized person or authority the content or substance of any private message intercepted lawfully in the manner provided for in Code Section 16-11-65;
(6) Any person to sell, give, or distribute, without legal authority, to any person or entity any photograph, videotape, or record, or copies thereof, of the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed; or
(7) Any person to commit any other acts of a nature similar to those set out in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this Code section which invade the privacy of another.
This. Don't listen to cops...they can be pretty ignorant about the law.The law seems to pretty clearly state that he CAN video tape people in his house without their consent and does not include any requirement to provide any sort of notification.
I've installed many cameras over the years specifically to prosecute in situations where theft was occuring or was suspected of occuring. Never heard of this law, never heard of any lawsuits.
Never take legal advice from a cop.
Az
Never take legal advice from a cop.
Az
The GA Supreme Court ruled that 2(C) is not part of the law.The law seems to pretty clearly state that he CAN video tape people in his house without their consent and does not include any requirement to provide any sort of notification.
https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/s12g1915.pdf?ts=1381147305We hold that subparagraph (2) (C) did not survive the subsequent amendment to OCGA § 16-11-62 and that, therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.
She recorded him in their house. He moved to exclude evidence. District court said she had an exception in (C). Appeals court said he had an exception in (C). Supreme court said (C) doesn't exist in the law.
Supreme court is basically saying the video evidence was made improperly.
(IANAL)
Even if 2C is ruled out 2B still makes the camera good to go.The GA Supreme Court ruled that 2(C) is not part of the law.
https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/s12g1915.pdf?ts=1381147305
She recorded him in their house. He moved to exclude evidence. District court said she had an exception in (C). Appeals court said he had an exception in (C). Supreme court said (C) doesn't exist in the law.
Supreme court is basically saying the video evidence was made improperly.
(IANAL)
I told him the cop was wrong but I wanted the code to verify
Thanks guys this why I like this forum some one will always the right info or a good link to the to the right info
The version I posted was put into law last year with the passage and enactment of SB 94 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/153952.pdfThe GA Supreme Court ruled that 2(C) is not part of the law.
https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/s12g1915.pdf?ts=1381147305
She recorded him in their house. He moved to exclude evidence. District court said she had an exception in (C). Appeals court said he had an exception in (C). Supreme court said (C) doesn't exist in the law.
Supreme court is basically saying the video evidence was made improperly.
(IANAL)
Thanks jlcnuke I looked up lexisNexis on my I pad and for some reasonThe version I posted was put into law last year with the passage and enactment of SB 94 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/153952.pdf
16-11 would not open up past 16-11-14 .thanks to your link I typed 16-11-62
in the search line and it went to it.
Ah. Thanks. I wasn't catching on it had been updated.The version I posted was put into law last year with the passage and enactment of SB 94 http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/153952.pdf
The Rutter case is an interesting read in regards to the intention of the legislature and when things are signed...sure smells familiar doesn't it?
"...I guess we'll hash that out in court then..."Bill-Columbus said:The cop told my son since he did not have a sign posted about camera the person could sue him.
:lol:
In almost every encounter I've had with a police officer - including a few I've known personally, and well - where the officer cited a law or was asked to clarify one, they were later found to have been incorrect nearly every time. From weapons and firearms and carry, to eavesdropping and property laws, they consistently get them wrong.
A FEW were generally correct. The best will admit they don't know since it's not something they usually deal with, and will go look it up, which is reasonable because nobody can know ALL of the law (as ruled by SCOTUS, which applies as an excuse only to police officers, for no reason other than corruption and government protecting its own ***). But all too many are absolutely convinced they know everything, or fall back on their own ah-thora-tie: "I don't care what the law says, I said it's illegal".
Police have no requirement to know the law, much less enforce it appropriately, because when they get it wrong they conveniently have laws to cover their own lousy backsides and protect them from being responsible for their own actions, even though the rest of us get no such consideration.
Long story short, NEVER accept a police officers' assertions as factual statements of law, because they're probably wrong, but it will be YOU will pay the price for acting on their advice.
A FEW were generally correct. The best will admit they don't know since it's not something they usually deal with, and will go look it up, which is reasonable because nobody can know ALL of the law (as ruled by SCOTUS, which applies as an excuse only to police officers, for no reason other than corruption and government protecting its own ***). But all too many are absolutely convinced they know everything, or fall back on their own ah-thora-tie: "I don't care what the law says, I said it's illegal".
Police have no requirement to know the law, much less enforce it appropriately, because when they get it wrong they conveniently have laws to cover their own lousy backsides and protect them from being responsible for their own actions, even though the rest of us get no such consideration.
Long story short, NEVER accept a police officers' assertions as factual statements of law, because they're probably wrong, but it will be YOU will pay the price for acting on their advice.
Rutter v. Rutter!!!!The GA Supreme Court ruled that 2(C) is not part of the law.
https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/s12g1915.pdf?ts=1381147305
She recorded him in their house. He moved to exclude evidence. District court said she had an exception in (C). Appeals court said he had an exception in (C). Supreme court said (C) doesn't exist in the law.
Supreme court is basically saying the video evidence was made improperly.
(IANAL)
This is the case that motivated the General Assembly to pass the law that says that a clean up bill makes whatever the Code Review Commission did the previous year the actual law.
Then they used it to try and nix HB 826. So far, it seems to be working.
Yeah...it seemed very similar to the 826 fight just didn't recognize it at first blush.Rutter v. Rutter!!!!
This is the case that motivated the General Assembly to pass the law that says that a clean up bill makes whatever the Code Review Commission did the previous year the actual law.
Then they used it to try and nix HB 826. So far, it seems to be working.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
