Camera for new barn

[ciderman]

But were they convicted anyway???

When WE captured them (local cops didn't go out of their way to track down the vehicle), there were wrenches and sockets in the car with my initials engraved in them. Inadmissible because I didn't have a receipt for any of them. It came down to a Fluke meter that I still had a receipt for to convict the scum. My initials on the tools were good enough for the cops and the DA, but the public defender had it thrown out. The DA told me this piece of dreck had a file 5" thick, but he still had more rights than the victims.

 

[ciderman]

That's how it is here in PA. Back in '07, my shop got completely cleaned out. It was all caught on tape, but completely inadmissible because I didn't have signs posted warning the scumbags.



That is the most f_cked up law I ever heard of. I wonder why it doesnt apply to traffic cams? I wonder if they had burned the place down or murdered someone if would have been admissable. Laws like this are why vigilante justice is on the increase.

Oddly enough, that's why I put the cameras up. Somebody had tried to torch our mill. Thankfully they used diesel fuel instead of gasoline in the Molotov cocktail. The township cop who investigated suggested I put up cameras, wish he had mentioned posting the signs.

 

[farmfun]

That's how it is here in PA. Back in '07, my shop got completely cleaned out. It was all caught on tape, but completely inadmissible because I didn't have signs posted warning the scumbags.

Can anyone shed some light on the Why and how of this law? What is the legal basis to REQUIRE posting property with warnings that "cameras are present' before recordings are legal for evidence? Is it some twisted extension of the 5th amendment perhaps?

 

[ciderman]

Can anyone shed some light on the Why and how of this law? What is the legal basis to REQUIRE posting property with warnings that "cameras are present' before recordings are legal for evidence? Is it some twisted extension of the 5th amendment perhaps?

Best I can remember, if you don't post warnings, it could be considered entrapment because, as you know, honest law-abiding people have nothing better to do than set enticing "traps" so poor, underprivileged, inner-city "youths" end up in jail.

 

[5030]

If I was that paranoid that I considered having a security camera a requirement of owning, of all things, rural property, I'd move into an apartment.

If someone is intent on pilfering you, it's going to happen, camera or not.

Have trouble sleeping at night??

I sleep well by the way...

I keep my outlots lit up with sodium lights, the machine shop and the barns. I'm not discrete around here with the fact that I'm a gun owner, I shoot competitoon pistol and hut big game with long range rifles and my wife is real handy with a pistol too.

Half the battle is recognition. If a would be perp knows you are half nuts and have an amory, they think twice. I'm a firm believer in the Castle Act.

 

[varmint]

So, set up cameras, and big signs warning the thiefs that they are being filmed. This assumes they can read. Maybe you should set up cameras watching the cameras, just in case. I had no idea that your initials are meaningless on tools. That's bad news. A big dog is looking like a good idea, with appropriate warning signs, of course.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

"The police wouldn't do anything about it because there wasn't any signage warning people the property was under security surveillance."

That may be true because police have discretion as to what they pursue and do not pursue. But, just because they don't pursue a criminal act does not mean they are justified in failing to do their job. Sounds to me like a lame excuse for a LEO not doing his job.

While I am not an expert on evidence in PA, I do not believe that video or audio of activities on your own property is inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial because it is entrapment. As I recall from my LEO days, entrapment requires LEO putting the idea of committing the crime into the perp's head. Local ADA told me there was no such rule that excludes video or audio in Oklahoma.

Does anyone have a link to a site that explains why signs are required?

By the way, signs on the front door of the office building where I worked did not stop the purse thieves who stole several purses. They knew how to utilize their hoodies to make identification virtually impossible.

 

[ptgdigger]

I work with cops in PA all the time , there is no "required signage" for video or photos, they will and have brought successful charges based on evidence even from covert game cameras. You just have lazy/overburdened cops or a corrupt judicial system in your area.

Audio is a different matter, many states in the US (inc PA) prohibit audio recording without "informed consent", these are old laws dating back to the earliest portable recording equipment ,1930's/1940's ? The key issue it all comes down to is that while someone may realize they can be photoed/(now videoed) anywhere , they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in spoken communications".

So while a police car will have forward looking and back seat video capabilities, there is no audio recording, even if you lock two people who are under arrest in the back of a cruiser, anything they say is inadmissable . And when the officer exits the car to interact with an individual he cannot activate his lapel microphone unless everyone who will be heard consents. This is also the same premise that prompts the recording that states "this call may be recorded for quality control purposes" when you call many tech support lines or call centers for large companies.

As far as the cameras themselves buy the best resolution you can afford and record at high resolution , there is nothing more disappointing then getting something recorded and not being able to identify someone/thing because your cameras stink or you were recording at 360X240.

Ray

 

[forgeblast]

Same with school buses, no audio but video is fine. I heard that putting your dl# on the tools was better then initials.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

"he cannot activate his lapel microphone unless everyone who will be heard consents"

Ptgdigger, that isn't, or at least it wasn't, the case in Oklahoma. We had an officer transporting a suspect in his patrol car who was talking about the crime, but boasted that the officer would not be able to prove what he said.

What the suspect didn't know was that the officer had laid the mic on the seat next to his leg, and keyed the mic with his leg. Suspect saw both of the officers hands on the steering wheel and thought it was safe to blabber. Since all police radio transmissions are recorded, the suspect was on tape without his knowledge or consent.

As for a reasonable expectation of privacy, how in the world can a trespasser have any reasonable expectation of privacy in this day and age of sophisticated electronic monitoring devices? If the suspect is in his own home, sure - I agree that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. But illegally on my property - that just makes no sense at all. There must be some additional facts that we are missing from the story.