Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

I believe you will find that anyone in public "has no reasonable expectation to privacy".Meaning if you are where everyone can see you, you are fair game.I have heard this before when photographers "accidentally" catch something other than what was expected.Maybe a lawyer will come on and explain the specifics.

There are laws regarding how much of the windshield can be obstructed, 5 square inches on the driver's side seems to be the acceptable limit. As far as invasion of privacy goes, I doubt that argument would fly. Would that make it illegal to take a picture out the window with a hand held camera? Some lawyer sees a paycheck.

As has been said before: It's America. You can sue anyone for anything you want.Collecting is a different matter.

As a professional photographer who has had to deal with the issue of photos taken in public as well as what can or can't be done with them, but not a lawyer (Official disclaimer here: nothing I say should be construed as legal advice, etc.) I can tell you that in the US, anything you can see from the public right-of-way without using "extraordinary" equipment is perfectly legal to photograph. There are right of privacy/right of publicity restrictions on what you can do with the photos, however.By "extraordinary equipment," I mean that you can't use a monster telephoto lens to peer into somebody's living room from 2 miles away, or hire a cherry-picker to look over the 10 foot fence in their backyard.So the OP's query about the legality of dashboard cameras brings up no issues for me. I would have no fear of getting in trouble with any sort of standard dashboard camera, and while I would hire a lawyer to defend me should I get sued for recording either someone's license number or number of persons in a car, I would also not give a second's thought to the possibility of losing such a lawsuit.Because, as @obgraham said, you can sue anybody you want for anything you want. But winning a judgement or actually collecting damages are another matter entirely. And I would anticipate the judge being sympathetic to a summary judgment with prejudice against anyone bringing an invasion of privacy suit for recording their license number as they drove down the public street. (A summary judgement with prejudice means that the issue is so ridiculous that the court finds no evidence or trial is even necessary, and don't under any circumstances attempt to bring such a suit to this court ever again. More or less.)As for the camera over a bathroom stall, even if the stall is in a public building or facility such as a park, there ARE laws most places that spell out such a camera is specifically illegal. I know that here in Virginia, there is a specific law that makes it illegal to photograph anyone in a bathroom stall or a bathhouse changing room or a store dressing/fitting room in any state of undress whatever. But the law does not invoke any right of privacy, it just forbids taking photos there.

obgraham wrote:As has been said before: It's America. You can sue anyone for anything you want.Collecting is a different matter.And believe me there is a lawyer that will take the case, when you have more lawyers than Doctor's then I think that is a problem. my family Dr. has to lay out over 250K a year for malpractice insurance.

Are dashboard video cameras legal?? | Good Sam Community

beemerphile1
Explorer
Jul 27, 2015
beemerphile1 wrote:
cameronpatentlaw wrote:
Generally, anything that is relevant to litigation is discoverable. If there is evidence that leads to a finding of the facts, the courts typically allow it be discovered and introduced. So if you have a running GoPro on your dash, and your phone beeps announcing the receipt of a text message (caught on audio), and you pick up the phone to read the message (time message read recorded on phone) and you rear-end someone (video of accident caught on camera) while reading the text, chances are quite good that the lawyer for the other side is going to subpoena that GoPro video and your cell phone records and match them up. The lawyer may also subpoena the black box of your vehicle. So, drive safe out there!

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

Quoting myself to respond to those that think they need to correct me. I responded to a specific case where the driver was already at fault. The camera did not make them any more at fault than they would have been otherwise!

Yes, a dash cam can prove innocence if the driver in the rear is innocent. I have a dash cam and have had it for a couple years.
rhagfo
Explorer III
Jul 25, 2015
Winged One wrote:
shakyjay wrote:
Winged One wrote:
Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.

Yes, you are correct. IF mounted so as to not obstruct. But those that are designed to be mounted in such a way (either on the glass or on the dash, blocking the glass) would be technically illegally mounted. So the camera is not illegal, just how you mount it, might be.

Small enough and mounted correctly can't be seen by the driver.
Johno02
Explorer
Jul 25, 2015
Don't need a super telephoto any more, just a drone outside a window.
Winged_One
Explorer
Jul 25, 2015
shakyjay wrote:
Winged One wrote:
Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.

Yes, you are correct. IF mounted so as to not obstruct. But those that are designed to be mounted in such a way (either on the glass or on the dash, blocking the glass) would be technically illegally mounted. So the camera is not illegal, just how you mount it, might be.
shakyjay
Explorer II
Jul 25, 2015
Winged One wrote:
Johno02 wrote:
Just heard a (unconfirmed) report that some lawyers are trying to sue users of dashboard cameras for "invasion of Privacy". because the cameras can record license plates and private information such as how many people are in a vehicle, if the vehicle is driving erratically, and the location of a persons vehicle at a particular time. Is that worse than a camera over the top of a bathroom stall?

To answer your subject question "Are dashboard video cameras legal??", technically in Michigan, if used as you would expect, no. Not legal.

Because of the following: MCL 257.709
(1) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with any of the following: (c) An object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.

I don't think you are going to find the dashboard video camera's authorized, but good for you if you can.

Does that mean you will get pulled over, ticketed and arrested?! Umm, doubtful. But technically, not legal (just like the multitude of things dangling from rear view mirrors, cell phone holders, etc that unless you find a bored LEO, you don't have to worry about).

That does not make a dashcam illegal simply means it has to be mounted so as not to obstruct the vision of the driver. Many of them are designed to mount on the backside of the rear view mirror or at least directly behind it. As things move forward I expect that someday we may see these as fairly standard equipment in new cars much like we now see back up cameras.
spoon059
Explorer II
Jul 25, 2015
bguy wrote:
In the situation you describe you will always be at fault if you are the rear ender. edit: even if the other party has no brakelights.

I believe that in Alberta the court won't allow dash cam as the only source of evidence.

#1 that is NOT true. If you are legally driving down a 55 mph road at speed and some clown pulls out of a side street or business directly in front of you and you run into the back of them, you are NOT at fault.

If you are driving down the road on a multi-lane highway and the guy next to you slams on his brakes and veers into your lane and you run into the back of him, you are NOT at fault.

If you are driving at night and the guy in front of you doesn't have taillights and is stopped in the road and you run into the back of him, you are NOT at fault.

However, if there is no proof that one of those things occurred, it can be hard to prove that the other driver was at fault. A dash cam could clearly and easily show what happened and make it super easy for a police officer or judge to determine exactly what happened.

#2 I am not from Canada, so I am not familiar with the laws up there... but I can't understand how a private video could not be used as evidence. Does the law specifically state dash cams are not admissible? What about your wife holding her cell and recording it? What about a private security camera from a business?

Not to call you a liar, but it just doesn't make sense. Video evidence, if it can be authenticated and proven not to be altered, is generally acceptable (even preferred) in the USA. I can't fathom that Alberta wouldn't allow dash cam footage to be admissible. Then again, even if its not admissible in court it could still be useful for an officer at the scene investigating a wreck and determining fault.
atreis
Explorer
Jul 25, 2015
Jagtech wrote:
Hmmm, cameras that can record license plates... invasion of privacy...

You can see their license plate too, and if they're driving on a public road they're making their license plate freely viewable by all - e.g. not private.

The private part of license plate data is the tie between the license plate and the person that owns it. Access and use of that data is regulated under the Driver's Protection Privacy Act.
Bumpyroad
Explorer
Jul 25, 2015
dave54 wrote:

No. I was not at fault. The vehicle in front suddenly slammed on the brakes for no reason. The court ruled he was at fault and I collected damages (rather, my insurance company did. They had already paid my claim and sued the front driver.) Two other people I know had similar results.

That is why I always have a reason that I slam on my brakes, usually it is because a small animal darts out in front of me.
bumpy
Jagtech
Explorer
Jul 25, 2015
Hmmm, cameras that can record license plates... invasion of privacy... where does photo radar come into this picture?
dave54
Nomad
Jul 25, 2015
bguy wrote:
dave54 wrote:
beemerphile1 wrote:

None of that really makes any difference.

Fact one - you rear ended another vehicle
fact two - you are at fault, open and shut case

No. That has not been true for at least forty years, if it ever was. If the vehicle in front suddenly stops for no valid reason then THEY may be at fault.

In the situation you describe you will always be at fault if you are the rear ender. edit: even if the other party has no brakelights.
?..

No. I was not at fault. The vehicle in front suddenly slammed on the brakes for no reason. The court ruled he was at fault and I collected damages (rather, my insurance company did. They had already paid my claim and sued the front driver.) Two other people I know had similar results.