Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

CA4: Video surveillance in open field not protected by Fourth Amendment

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

"The appellant in this case, Steve Vankesteren, invites us to consider the application of the Fourth Amendment to a product of modern surveillance technology: namely, a hidden, fixed-range, motion-activated video camera placed in the appellant's open fields. We find that the protective wall of the Fourth Amendment does not shield the appellant from the Commonwealth's use of such a camera, and we therefore affirm the decision of the district court." United States v. Vankesteren, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 183 (4th Cir. January 8, 2009): Given the facts of these Supreme Court decisions [Hester (1924), Oliver (1984), Dunn (1987)], Vankesteren has little on which to base his case. Vankesteren's fields were located a mile or more from his home, the land was being used for farming and not intimate activities, VDGIF had received a report of a trapped protected bird, and there is no indication in the record that Vankesteren had taken any steps to protect his field from observation...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on January 10, 2009 (boomark / email).