DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

  • News
  • Inspiration
  • Reviews
  • Tutorials
  • DIY
  • Gear
Search

Submit A Story

State Supreme Court rules digital cameras can’t be searched without a warrant

Aug 24, 2017 by John Aldred 4 Comments

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Flipboard
  • WhatsApp

This is a somewhat limited bit not insignificant ruling. Techdirt reports that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has “sort of” decided that the Supreme Court’s Riley decision isn’t just for phones. It covers digital cameras, too.

In the case in question, a robbery suspect’s backpack was searched. In it, amongst other things, they found a camera. The police searched it without a warrant and discovered a photograph of the suspect next to what was later to be a stolen gun. This led to two convictions. One for stolen property and the other for carrying a firearm without a license.

Naturally, the defendant challenged the evidence resulting from the warrantless search of the backpack. Much of it was overturned, but the court sees digital cameras to be no different to cellphones.

The Commonwealth counters that Riley does not apply because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers, are not analogous to cell phones for Fourth Amendment purposes. We decline to address the constitutionality of the search of the digital camera on Fourth Amendment grounds, but we apply the reasoning in Riley in holding that the search of the camera violated art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights].

The court pointed out that there’s nothing in the law that allows offers to search something without a warrant if that something poses no risk to offer safety or the preservation of evidence. Searching the backpack itself is fine, because there was the chance it could have contained a weapon.

Searching the camera isn’t, because it isn’t a weapon (which was the observation made by the US Supreme Court about cellphones). They also decided that the possibility of evidence destruction was even lower in a camera with limited or zero network connectivity.

This reasoning presents a compelling basis to exclude digital cameras from the reach of the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Like the cell phone, the twin threats of “harm to officers and destruction of evidence” are not present with regard to the data on a digital camera.

The court also finds that digital cameras are to be just as likely filled with private information as cellphones. People photograph all kinds of things. And then there’s clients to worry about. While I’m sure this particular individual was not a professional photographer, such events can happen to anybody.

The US Supreme Court’s Riley decision does not go as far as to explicitly include digital cameras. But rather than challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling, the court found the warrantless search a violation of the state’s version of the Bill of Rights. Hence the “sort of” at the top of this post.

Instead, we decide the issue based on our State Constitution, bearing in mind that “art. 14 . . . does, or may, afford more substantive protection to individuals than that which prevails under the Constitution of the United States.” Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 68 n.9 (1987). We hold, for the same reasons articulated by the Supreme Court in Riley and as set forth above, that digital cameras may be seized incident to arrest, but that the search of data contained in digital cameras falls outside the scope of the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement.

[…]

Indeed, with the twin threats justifying the search incident to arrest exception mitigated here because the camera was secure in the custody of the police, the officers had ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant.

So, fairly limited in reach, but still quite significant. It shows that at least one court values the private data contained with one’s camera just as much as one’s phone. I can see this trend starting to spread. Not only to other areas, but to more digital devices as well.

We carry around so much more information with us now than we did when many of these laws were made. And private information, too, about others as well as ourselves.

[via Techdirt]

FIND THIS INTERESTING? SHARE IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Flipboard
  • WhatsApp

Related posts:

Justice Breyer explains to Stephen Colbert why cameras are banned in the Supreme Court Supreme Court of the US is looking for full-time photographer Get ready to pay more for your gear online after new Supreme Court decision Media companies can’t use your social media photos without permission, court rules

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Massachusetts, police, Riley decision, state court, Supreme Court

About John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter - and occasional beta tester - of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

« These artists create calligraphic graffiti with light painting
A man almost gets struck by lightning while filming the storm »

Submit A Story

Get our FREE Lighting Book

DIYP lighting book cover

* download requires newsletter signup
DIYPhotography

Recent Comments

Free Resources

Advanced lighting book

Recent Posts

  • SpaceX shares unique view of Earth in latest video
  • Get ready to photograph two total solar eclipses this year
  • How I started (and succeeded) photographing space from my backyard
  • Insta360’s new teaser says they’re entering the gimbal market
  • Users report blurry photos from Samsung Galaxy S23/S23+ cameras

Alex Baker is a portrait and lifestyle driven photographer based in Valencia, Spain. She works on a range of projects from commercial to fine art and has had work featured in publications such as The Daily Mail, Conde Nast Traveller and El Mundo, and has exhibited work across Europe

Dave Williams is an accomplished travel photographer, writer, and best-selling author from the UK. He is also a photography educator and published Aurora expert. Dave has traveled extensively in recent years, capturing stunning images from around the world in a modified van. His work has been featured in various publications and he has worked with notable brands such as Skoda, EE, Boeing, Huawei, Microsoft, BMW, Conde Nast, Electronic Arts, Discovery, BBC, The Guardian, ESPN, NBC, and many others.

John Aldred is a photographer with over 20 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter - and occasional beta tester - of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Copyright © DIYPhotography 2006 - 2023 | About | Contact | Advertise | Write for DIYP | Full Disclosure | Privacy Policy