Connecticut video laws

Laws that limit the use of video cameras by private parties in public places.

We could not find any laws limiting the use of video cameras by private parties in public places. We did find laws addressing voyeurism and cameras in dressing rooms but these focus on places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. We contacted the National Association of Security Companies and the Security Industry Association but they could not provide us with any information on this topic.

A Louisville, Kentucky ordinance requires certain stores to use security cameras to record transactions in the stores. The ordinance applies to stores that are not primarily restaurants and have at least five employees on the premises after 10 p.m. and before 5 a.m. The stores must post a sign stating that transactions are recorded. The ordinance took effect March 1, 1999 and punishes violators with fines of up to $500 per day.

Police in a number of towns and cities around the country have experimented with security cameras in attempts to reduce crime. At least through 1997, no case or statute prohibited law enforcement from photographing people in public places (Burrows, Scowl Because You’re on Candid Camera: Privacy and Video Surveillance, 31 Val.U.L.Rev. 1079 (1997)). A law review article proposes a model statute to set standards for police use of cameras in public places. Under the model statute, police must:

1. use trained, professional, certified officers;2. disclose to targets that they are or were under surveillance, disclose the surveillance to the general public, and provide citizens an opportunity to submit written comments and comment at public hearings;

3. prove probable cause and a compelling government interest to a judge showing that video surveillance is necessary and that the least restrictive method of surveillance will be used; and

4. specify the targets, times, and goals of the surveillance in the court order and report every 10 days to show probable cause and compelling government interest to continue the surveillance.

Under the model statute, all video information is suppressed if these requirements are not followed and officers would be subject to criminal penalties and discharge from employment for violations. Also, it is illegal to exploit the contents of the videos, punishable by a mandatory fine and prison sentence. The model statute gives a person a civil cause of action against a person who acted under color of law to deprive him of the right to privacy under the state constitution through video surveillance (Burrows).

You asked whether (1) it is a crime to video tape someone without their permission; (2) it is necessary for the police to have the tape before they can investigate or make an arrest; and (3) the victim can sue.

SUMMARY

It is a crime for someone to knowingly videotape, or otherwise record another person’s image without their knowledge or consent under the following circumstances. The offender must do so with malice or intent to satisfy or arouse his or anyone’s sexual desires when the recording is done. The subject cannot be in plain view. Finally, the video taping must occur under circumstances where the subject reasonably expects privacy. This offense is a class A misdemeanor. It is punishable by a prison term of up to one year, a fine of up to $2,000, or both.

If a person disseminates one of these images knowing that it was taken in this manner without the subject’s consent, he is guilty of the offense of disseminating voyeuristic material. This is a class D felony punishable by a prison term of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

Jack Cronan of the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office advised us that the police do not necessarily need the video tape before they can investigate or make an arrest. Other evidence such as eyewitness testimony or admissions by the offender can often be sufficient depending on the circumstances. In fact, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to sustain a conviction (State v. Henning, 220 Conn. 417(1991)). He also indicated that a victim might bring the matter directly to the attention of the state’s attorney for the Judicial District where the offense occurred if he is dissatisfied with the response he gets from the police.

A victim can sue the offender. The grounds for the lawsuit would depend on the exact circumstance. But two legal theories that would probably be available to the victim would include invasion of privacy and negligence per se. We have briefly described each theory below. Once the victim files the lawsuit, he would be able to question the offender under oath and could issue a subpoena to obtain the tape.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

The invasion of the right of privacy developed as an independent and distinct tort from the classic and famous article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis (see The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv.L Rev.193, 195 (1890)). Since that time the right to privacy has been given protection in a majority of the jurisdictions in this country, including Connecticut.

The law of privacy comprises four distinct kinds of invasions: (1) intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) publicity which places a person in a false light, and (4) misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness (see Prosser on Torts § 112). Voyeurism can fall under the first type of invasion. In order to prove invasion of privacy based on an intrusion on someone’s solitude and seclusion, a victim must show that (1) there was an invasion, (2) it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the situation (see, for example, Melvin v. Burling, 490 N.E. 2d 1011 (Ill App. Dist. 1986)).

Connecticut courts allow lawsuits for invasion of privacy. The right to privacy is invaded if a person unreasonably and seriously interferes with another’s interest in not having his affairs known to others or his likeness exhibited to the public. Liability exists if the conduct was such that the doer would have realized that it would be offensive to people of ordinary sensibilities (Conn. Law of Torts, § 166, Right of Privacy). Under this test, a court allowed a lawsuit based on the allegations of a woman that, without her permission, her photograph was published for advertising purposes and that she was there after subjected to ridicule, embarrassment, vexation, and humiliation (Korn v. Rennison, 21 Conn. Sup. 400).

Victims of voyeurism in other states have successfully sued for invasion of privacy against the voyeur. There is no reason to think Connecticut victims could not successfully sue here.

In Hamberger v. Eastman, 206 A.2d 239 (1964), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that a husband and wife had their solitude invaded when their landlord installed and concealed a listening and recording device in their bedroom and connected it to his residence by wires capable of transmitting and recording any sounds and voices originating in the bedroom. This invasion, according to the Court, violated the plaintiffs’ right to privacy.

In Snakenberg v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 383 S.E. 2d 2 (1989), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a modeling agent who concealed a video camera and tape recorder and used them to film and record models using a bedroom to undress invaded the models’ privacy.

In another case, several models who were videotaped in their dressing area during a fashion show were deemed to have a cause of action even though they were not taped while undressed (In Re Doe, 945 F. 2d 1442 (8^th Cir. 1991)).

NEGLIGENCE PER SE

The unexcused violation of a criminal statute is negligence per se, or as it is also known, negligence as a matter of law (Monroe v. Hartford Street Ry. Co., 76 Conn. 201). In order for a victim to take advantage of this legal theory he must be within the class of persons whom the statute was intended to protect. Also, the harm must be of the type that the enactment was intended to prevent (Wright v. Brown, 167 Conn. 464).

Establishing negligence per se is not enough. The victim must also prove the link between the statutory violation and the damages he is claiming.