There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
> There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
The Illinois State Police can confirm that on August 11, 2018, Mr. David Weaver was arrested by the ISP and cited for the following offenses at the scene of a multi vehicle personal injury crash that resulted in multi vehicle fires: Criminal Trespass to Real Property, Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicles, Stopping Parking or Standing on Roadway, and Walking Improperly on the roadway. This case remains open and ongoing in the court system, therefore we have no further comment at this time. The Illinois State Police's primary goal at the scene of a critical incident, and at all times, is the safety and well-being of all members of the public.
The linked article has a photo that shows many people walking on that controlled access highway, many right in the middle. Were they all arrested?
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it merely the association with a commercial product?
Sure, I get that, because they don't want to be sued.
You asked what the difference was with the social media post vs. TV: The difference is that COPS, etc., don't want to be sued, so they get releases, because they realize that they could potentially be sued (and sometimes for good reason!) I sincerely doubt the person in the post signed a release from Amazon.
If you argue that it's technically legal, the OP wasn't specifically arguing that either.
> Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.
OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.
The standard for winning a civil case (preponderance of evidence) is lower than the standard for winning a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), so the two are not comparable.
What does that have anything to do with the point being made of the OJ Simpson case as an example of money winning cases? In both the civil and criminal case the parties with more money/resources lost respectively.
The party with less money had the easier side in both cases. GGGP's point is that even though the party with less money had the easier case in the OJ trial, they had enough money to win what somebody with less money would have certainly lost. Though the state has more money, it could not afford OJ's lawyers. Similarly, at the time of the civil trial, OJ could not afford the lawyers he had in the criminal trial.
OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury
They don’t blur faces on FBIs most wanted, those suspects haven’t given permission to use their name/likeness...the show solicits information from the public and even offers rewards for information leading to arrest.
It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action.
Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness and that goodwill is being misappropriated specifically to recommend or endorse a product. That's not the case here, for sure.
> It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act
But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time.
It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.
Now, if you can prove that. I’ve pulled on door handles of cars that I believed to be mine. I’ve tried to enter apartments and hotel rooms because I took the wrong floor. The acts described in the video certainly look suspicious, but as a stand-alone video are a bit low as standards for convictions should go.
So perhaps this is a suspect due to other factors that aren't mentioned. Maybe the location of this video is near other documented break-ins and it fits a profile.
As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes.
The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness to misappropriate.
Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here.
For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.
That person is on camera attempting to open a car that is (presumably) not theirs, on (presumably) private property. Unless the recording was edited or taken out of context, proving that statement is false is going to be difficult.
There is an additional nuance as to whether a sponsored post is an ad or not. They are paid for posts to reach a larger audience, but not necessarily to advertise a product. In this case, the police are asking for more information about this person, and Ring has paid Facebook to reach a larger audience.
I agree that in this instance a lawsuit would likely be unsuccessful. I was just putting out a couple legal theories that could be applied to this general fact pattern (Amazon putting a Ring video of you in a security-minded advertisement).
If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.
Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act.
Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
>If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.
I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
>I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified
Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise.
Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.
Not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like libel to me. There's an implication that the people are committing a crime despite not being convicted. Doesn't sound like a clear cut case because it doesn't outright say they're a criminal. That said, I could be missing some of the nuances with these laws.
Perhaps defamation? If this person isn't actually guilty of their suspected crime, especially since no conviction has been made, couldn't this post ruin the person's reputation?
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.