United States v. Vankesteren

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the government had not violated the defendant’s Fourth Amend- ment rights through use of “a hidden, fixed-range, motion-activated video camera placed in the [defendant’s] open fields”
• evaluating the reasonableness of the warrantless installation of a video camera as a search under the Fourth Amendment
• upholding warrantless placement of a motion-activated camera in an open field owned by the plaintiff, where he felt “comfortable enough to relieve 23 himself,” to observe him killing endangered birds
• Use of surveillance cameras to film an open field does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• video surveillance of defendant’s open field, where he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, did not violate Fourth Amendment
• surveillance cameras on farmer’s land did not violate Fourth Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).