Pole Cameras and Privacy in Massachusetts:
When Long-Term Video Surveillance of a Home: Becomes an Unreasonable Search
One of the most important protections you have in America is the constitutional right to privacy. The government cannot intrude on your home or seize your property without a good legal reason. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights forbid unreasonable searches and seizures. In most situations, police need a search warrant based on probable cause before they can search.
New technology often creates new questions about what counts as a “search.” In August 2020 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered one of those questions in the case of Commonwealth v. Mora. The Court decided that long-term, continuous video surveillance of a person’s home with hidden “pole cameras” is a search that generally requires a warrant.
What Are Pole Cameras and Why Were They Used?
In the Mora case, a confidential informant told police that Nelson Mora was a large-scale drug dealer. An undercover officer later made multiple purchases of oxycodone and fentanyl from him. Shortly after the investigation began, officers installed hidden video cameras on public telephone and utility poles. These cameras were aimed at the homes of people they believed were involved in the drug activity.
The cameras recorded the fronts of the houses, the sidewalks, and the nearby streets. They ran 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Together they collected more than 200 days of continuous footage. Although the cameras did not have night-vision capability, officers could zoom in and change the camera angles in real time. All of the video was stored on a State Police server and could be searched later by investigators.
The police never obtained a search warrant before installing the cameras or collecting the footage. They later used that footage as evidence against the defendants.
How Did the Defense Challenge the Evidence?
Defense lawyers asked the trial court to suppress the pole-camera footage. They argued that the continuous, long-term video surveillance of the homes was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The trial judge denied the motion. The judge reasoned that the cameras only captured what any member of the public could have seen from the street, and that the cameras were fixed on public poles rather than tracking people through private spaces. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
What Legal Questions Did the Supreme Judicial Court Decide?
The Court focused on three related questions: whether the pole-camera surveillance was a search, whether the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and how targeted and intensive the surveillance was.
The Court discussed two competing ways of thinking about privacy. Under the “public view” theory, a person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in things that are openly exposed to the public. Under the “mosaic” theory, the continuous collection of many small pieces of public information over a long period can create a detailed picture of a person’s private life that goes far beyond what ordinary public observation would reveal.
The Commonwealth relied mainly on the public-view theory. The defense relied on the mosaic theory. The Supreme Judicial Court ultimately agreed with the defense.
What Was the Court’s Final Decision?
The Court held that the long-term pole-camera surveillance of the defendants’ homes was a search. Because the police had not obtained a warrant supported by probable cause, the surveillance violated the defendants’ constitutional rights.
The Court rejected the argument that the lack of fences or hedges around the homes meant there was no expectation of privacy. Constitutional privacy protections apply to everyone, regardless of whether they can afford physical barriers. The Court emphasized that the home receives special protection under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 14. Continuous 24-hour video surveillance of a home, even if limited to the exterior, is a significant intrusion.
The Court compared the situation to a castle under siege: even if the walls are never breached, the people inside cannot feel secure. Long-term camera surveillance revealed detailed information about the residents’ habits, visitors, and daily life that ordinary police observation could not have gathered with the same intensity or duration.
What Does This Decision Mean Going Forward?
Commonwealth v. Mora is an important victory for privacy rights in Massachusetts. It makes clear that police cannot simply install long-term video cameras aimed at private homes without a warrant. New technology does not erase constitutional limits on government surveillance.
For people facing criminal charges, the decision provides a strong basis to challenge pole-camera evidence obtained without a warrant. A successful motion to suppress can keep that evidence out of trial and, in some cases, weaken or destroy the Commonwealth’s case.
The ruling also reminds investigators that the right to privacy continues to apply even when the tools of investigation become more sophisticated. Continuous, targeted surveillance of a home is not the same as a brief observation from a public street.
Protect Your Rights
If police used pole cameras or other long-term surveillance in your case, or if you believe your home was subjected to continuous video monitoring without a warrant, the evidence may be subject to challenge. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can review the surveillance, the legal basis for it, and whether a motion to suppress is appropriate.
Contact Attorney William J. Barabino for a confidential consultation. Call 781-393-5900 to discuss your case and the available defenses.
Related Reading on This Site
