For once I agree with the ACLU

[Hawkmoon]

https://reason.com/2022/04/21/houston-says-businesses-must-install-surveillance-cameras-and-cops-can-view-footage-without-a-warrant/

Houston is requiring a variety of venues to install 24-hour surveillance cameras -- at their own expense -- and to make video available to the police on request, without any warrant.

The ACLU is on the case, and for once I support them. I think the concept is unconstitutional, and I'm aghast that it happened in Texas. It's the kind of 1984-ish stunt I would expect from California, NYC, or Philadelphia.

[AZRedhawk44]

https://reason.com/2022/04/21/houston-says-businesses-must-install-surveillance-cameras-and-cops-can-view-footage-without-a-warrant/

Houston is requiring a variety of venues to install 24-hour surveillance cameras -- at their own expense -- and to make video available to the police on request, without any warrant.

The ACLU is on the case, and for once I support them. I think the concept is unconstitutional, and I'm aghast that it happened in Texas. It's the kind of 1984-ish stunt I would expect from California, NYC, or Philadelphia.

From my brief 6-month stint in Dallas, my impression is that Texas is every bit as free as your Baptist minister says it can be.  Big overblown noises about it that camouflage the authoritarianism.

[K Frame]

OK...

I have couple of issues with the tone and timbre of this article.

First, while I disagree with Houston's approach at requiring businesses to do this, I adamantly disagree that it's a violation of someone's privacy.

The cameras are outside, covering public areas. No one has any expectation of privacy when they are out in public and are in open view to anyone else. That's why it's called public.

But, legislatively forcing businesses to become an arm and actor of the state under force of law, with none of the accompanying rights or protections?

That I adamantly disagree with.

[dogmush]

Perhaps no expectation of privacy from the folks on the street, but the footage is privately owned.  By insisting that the businesses purchase, install, maintain, and store the camera's and footage, the businesses own the footage, and it is subject to fourth amendment protections.  "secure in their .... papers".

If the city wanted to require hosting a city owned and maintained CCTV system as a pre-requisite for business licensing, it would be odious, but probably legal, but they cant force the businesses to open their privately owned files without a warrant.

For that matter, "expectation of privacy" could get dicey depending on what, exactly, Houston considers "video coverage from the exterior of the building to the property line"  Does that include areas out of public traffic and sight?  Like fenced off employee or owner only areas? back yards?  Fenced private property adjacent to the businesses?

[MechAg94]

This is the Houston city council.  They are a bunch of leftists.  That city and county went full Democrat in 2016 or before.  Crime has been ramping up since then due to a cashless bail initiative and a bunch of Democrat judges who have created a backlog of murder trials. 

[K Frame]

"Perhaps no expectation of privacy from the folks on the street, but the footage is privately owned."

I've not read Houston's law to see how it's worded specifically, but at the point that the business is forced to become an arm of the state, that status of the footage (private vs public) becomes suspect, and that's where the courts have to step in.

"Does that include areas out of public traffic and sight?  Like fenced off employee or owner only areas? back yards?  Fenced private property adjacent to the businesses?"

Existing law is generally a lot clearer on the distinction between public and private when it comes to restricted access, restricted sight, etc. The question of plain sight was, in part, litigated some years ago when it came to police using thermal cameras to check houses for heat signatures that could be indicative of pot grow operations. The Supreme Court ruled that thermal camera use without warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. IIRC one of the arguments for use of the camera was that it was a "plain sight" tool -- courts didn't buy that since the Mk I eyeball doesn't have thermal imaging capabilities.

Other rulings have indicated that police can't claim plain sight if they have to use a ladder to peer over a fence.

A business parking lot may not be 100% public in that it's privately deeded and access may be restricted to reasonable use of the business itself, but unless it's barrier fenced it's generally treated as an extension of public space and in public view.

[Boomhauer]

https://reason.com/2022/04/21/houston-says-businesses-must-install-surveillance-cameras-and-cops-can-view-footage-without-a-warrant/

Houston is requiring a variety of venues to install 24-hour surveillance cameras -- at their own expense -- and to make video available to the police on request, without any warrant.

The ACLU is on the case, and for once I support them. I think the concept is unconstitutional, and I'm aghast that it happened in Texas. It's the kind of 1984-ish stunt I would expect from California, NYC, or Philadelphia.

The big cities in TX- DFW, Austin, and Houston are every bit as authoritarian loving as any major city in a Dem state.

[WLJ]

Houston: Home of Sheila Jackson Lee. That should tell you all need to know about Houston.

[HankB]

Houston isn't the only Texas city full of cr@p - the city of Austin is known throughout most of Texas as "Moscow on the Colorado." The people running it are often referred to locally as the "Austin City Clowncil."  (Sometimes a different word that rhymes with "city" and has a scatological meaning is used.)

[zxcvbob]

OK...

I have couple of issues with the tone and timbre of this article.

First, while I disagree with Houston's approach at requiring businesses to do this, I adamantly disagree that it's a violation of someone's privacy.

The cameras are outside, covering public areas. No one has any expectation of privacy when they are out in public and are in open view to anyone else. That's why it's called public.

But, legislatively forcing businesses to become an arm and actor of the state under force of law, with none of the accompanying rights or protections?

That I adamantly disagree with.

That sounds like a 3rd Amendment violation.  You don't get those very often