Legal Note Concerning Constitutional Law
Use of "groundhog" Camera as a Surveillance Device

Portions taken from the Supreme Court of Arkansas Ruling
[View the Court's Complete Ruling]

3. Search & seizure -- affidavit & search warrant obtained prior to viewing contents of videotape -- video camera had no causal connection to evidence seized pursuant to search warrant. -- Where the investigator executed the affidavit and obtained thesearch warrant three days before he viewed the contents of the videotape, the affidavit only referred to setting up the video camera as the reason for returning to the site of the suspected methamphetamine laboratory, and it did not allege any information that was gathered from the contents of the videotape, even assuming, arguendo, that use of the "groundhog" video camera was an illegal search, it had no causal connection to the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant.

4. Constitutional law -- use of "groundhog" camera did not violate Fourth Amendment -- warrant is not required when video surveillance is used to record activity in area where suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy. -- The U.S. Supreme Court has held that use of photographic equipment to gather evidence that could lawfully be observed by a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment; in other words, a warrant is not required when video surveillance is used to record activity in an area where the suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy; here, appellant did not question the trial court's finding that the "groundhog" camera was placed on a neighbor's property and recorded activity that took placein an open field; because appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the open field, the warrantless video recording did not violate the Fourth Amendment.