Can Video from a Hidden Camera Be Used in a Domestic Violence Prosecution

[zags4champs]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: MI

Can a serepticiously installed home surveillance camera that only the victim knows about be used as evidence of DV or sex crimes in the court of law? Or does this violate the state’s eavesdropping laws?

[budwad]

Video recording only is not covered by the law. So if a crime of DV is caught on video without audio, then it does not violate any eavesdropping laws. And in MI, one person consent to audio recording does not violate the law.

[adjusterjack]

Video recording only is not covered by the law.

Yes, it is.

So if a crime of DV is caught on video without audio, then it does not violate any eavesdropping laws.

That might not be exactly right. Depends on where on the premises the camera was situated.

Michigan Penal Code 750.539d Installation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private place.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following:

(a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place.

(b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section.

(2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose.

(3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a):

(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

(ii) If the person was previously convicted of violating or attempting to violate this section, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(b) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(b), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(4) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law committed by that person while violating or attempting to violate subsection (1)(a) or (b).

750.539a Definitions.

As used in sections 539a to 539i:

(1) “Private place” means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.

[budwad]

Come on Jack, a person has every right to place cameras in their home and if it captures DV, well that is not a violation of the law.

2)

This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose.

You posted the law.

[adjusterjack]

unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose.

If a spouse hides the camera in the bedroom to video the other spouse in flagrante delicto with a lover, I have some doubts about the legality of that surveillance.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If a spouse hides the camera in the bedroom to video the other spouse in flagrante delicto with a lover, I have some doubts about the legality of that surveillance.

If the only video produced from such a camera recorded an act of domestic violence, it would be difficult to prove either that other video existed or that the purpose in placing the camera was improper.

That aside, the statute does not exclude from evidence any recording taken in violation of the statute, or from a camera that theoretically may have been placed in violation of the statute; the disincentive for admitting to having such a recording appears to be the possibility of a criminal prosecution in the event that the recording was made in violation of the statute.

[zags4champs]

So prosecutors could actually turn around and charge the victim of IPV for illegally documenting their abuse.... I’m sure the DV adovacates and community would LOVE reminding them about that when it came to reelections.