Court Opinion

ID: 9507715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:49.481607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:22.939651
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY,
concurring specially:
I concur with the result in this case. The hidden video camera in the case recorded the defendant visually and aurally. The use of the video camera in the manner described in this case constituted a “search” of the defendant. See Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 88 S.Ct.507. A warrantless search is Per Se unreasonable, unless it falls within one of the defined exceptions to the warrant requirement. Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564. The exceptions to the warrant requirement generally arise out of exigent circumstances necessary to protect or preserve life or property or to avoid serious injury. See Wayne v. C. S. (C.A.D.C. 1963), 318 F.2d. 205. No exigent circumstances appear here to justify the warrantless search. Accordingly, the videotape of the defendant in this case, without more, was invalidly obtained and was properly excluded from evidence.