~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision;
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy.
The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens, this article has some good information on Massachusetts state laws applicable to video surveillance, audio recordings, pretext interviews and pretrial discovery.
Thanks to John Jay College for preserving this artifact, which I dug up on an unusual research project for a client.
“Salesmen are not to be permitted to enter the institution.”— John Nardizzi (@AuthorPI) January 26, 2018
- Memo dated April 22nd, 1941
from Warden, Sing Sing Prison pic.twitter.com/iHe8o3EBMZ
At long last, court strikes down MA police department's bogus interpretation of criminal records (CORI) law: mug shots, arrest reports of officials are public.https://t.co/KPOXX4MJHV Full case here: https://t.co/x2WH55xYg9— John Nardizzi (@AuthorPI) December 28, 2017
Mr. Rosario is now married and works as a minister in Dorchester.