re: Toviano...Anyone have an update?

quote:

---

This can't be the whole law.

---

It’s obviously not the whole law considering the excerpt ends with “and either:”

I’ve already linked the law in this thread. Here it is again:
RS 13:283

quote:

---

This would be unconstitutional to uphold in a public setting. The law must have language that determines if the setting is public or private or a presumption of privacy which you don't have in a public space. In public, I can videotape everyone, regardless of consent. It is part of our constitutional rights to have free speech and free press.

I'm not condoning what he did, I just think you oversimplified the law to the extreme.

---

The reason I bolded and underlined part of the quoted text was to dispute the idea that her knowledge of any previous recording (which would have also been a felony without her consent anyway) is somehow a defense. It doesn’t matter because the law requires consent for the specific instance. It wasn’t intended to be a simplification of the entire law.

To your point, yes - the law does require a reasonable expectation of privacy (in the event that the recording is not done for a “lewd or lascivious” purpose) for video voyeurism to occur.

Good grief !

quote:

---

You can have a security camera anywhere you want inside your house

---

This was my question too. Are you not allowed to have security cameras inside your home? Do you have to request consent anytime someone comes over or turn them off? Not related to this, but just in general how that works.

quote:

---

So that now means it wasn't a HIDDEN camera, since she knew it was there. Which implies consent knowing his trail cam was set up there, and you walked there.

---

That’s not how that works

Toviano was seen in the group pic of LSU in the meeting starting fall camp.

LINK

I guess statement “suspended from all team activities” is being used pretty loosely

According to the front page, he’s been reinstated by the university and is back with the team.

quote:

---

And if it's not planned just a camera you keep on all the time for security? Again unrelated to this case.

---

The question is whether they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bedrooms and bathrooms are pretty much universally acknowledged as places where a “reasonable expectation of privacy” holds.

Simply having a camera in those locations isn’t illegal, but capturing specific things (such as sexual intercourse, nudity, someone using the bathroom, etc.) without consent to that specific instance of recording is a felony.

So basically you can put cameras wherever you want, but if you put one in your bathroom you have to ask for consent to capture video whenever someone uses the bathroom.

The same applies to businesses, which is why you don’t see cameras for anti-shoplifting purposes in fitting rooms or bathrooms. I remember reading about a case where a store owner had a camera that only covered the “common” area of a bathroom (like around the sinks, if I recall) for anti-theft purposes and got arrested for it.

As I understand, it becomes more complicated in other parts of a house/apartment (e.g. living rooms, kitchens, etc.). The question of whether a visitor/tenant/whatever has a reasonable expectation of privacy might be more nuanced in those cases.

Once you get outside it becomes pretty clear that there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, but you do have to be somewhat careful about aiming cameras toward other houses’ windows.

It’s a camera hidden in a fricking clock dude