Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In last month's article, "Can You Hear Me Now — Privacy of Discussions," I examined case law involving cell site location Information (CSLI) to discuss why that case law is inconsistent and deeply problematic when it finds a "reasonable expectation of privacy," as the concept is understood, in CSLI when interpreting the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In summary, I discussed how cases finding a "privacy" violation when law enforcement gathers, without a warrant, CSLI of a target's cellphone over a period of time to determine where the target was over that period, make little sense because the CSLI captured is intercepted from public atmospheres in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy to track the target's public movements, in which the target had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Mason, J-44-2020 No. 69 MAP 2019 (March 25, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that audio interceptions, made in the bedroom of toddler-aged victims of a nanny's physical and verbal abuse, when such interceptions were captured by a camera hidden in a bedroom of the house by the father (and house owner) of the toddler-aged victims, did not violate the rights of the defendant (the nanny) under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (Wiretap Act), 18 Pa.C.S. Sections 5701-5782, and so were admissible. The Supreme Court drew a proper and logical conclusion from the facts and the law and, hopefully, brought us closer to a reasonable look at the issue, but we still have a long way to go.
|In Mason, both the trial and Superior Court held that the defendant's motion to suppress should be granted because the father's installation and usage of the hidden "nanny cam" and the subsequent reception by the commonwealth of the tapes generated by the nanny cam, which tapes recorded both what could be seen or heard in the bedroom, violated the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court reversed, voting 5-2, with the two dissenters offering opinions that strongly disagreed with the majority opinion.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.