Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Hampton Law" channel.

@glycerosfournaris2512 You have just contradicted yourself. Thanks for demonstrating you don't really understand what you're saying.
5
Do you believe you have a right to film anything you can see from public property? If so, that's all that's happening here.
4
 @glycerosfournaris2512 And the judge has earned it. That's why they're a judge 🤦‍♂️
3
No. It means you should call your lawyer and document (video) everything you can to make your lawyers job easy.
3
@dustinmiller2775 1. A window is a type of wall you can see through with your eyes 2. A standard video camera can see things your eye can not 3. Xavier is just a type of video camera that uses a technology other than optics 4. Your eyes can not record a 1:1 copy of what was seen 5. Your eyes can not replay* nor share with others not present what was seen. Seems like a first amendment protection to me. If Xavier is a forth amendment violation, then filming inside a building through an uncovered window must be too... right? InB4, if you watched to the end, you will see you can "cover" your walls so xavier can't see through them similar to how you can cover a window.
2
@nic.h I'm not sure how that's supposed to answer my question. Katz test only asks two questions to determine a search, but an uncovered window is the same as a wall with xavier and uncovered windows have precedent as not being a search.
1
@nic.h That isn't a legal theory. That's your subjective opinion, which I disagree with. The average person expects privacy inside their home regardless of whether a window is covered or not, however the supreme court has explicitly stated that a window not covered or only partially covered is ok so long as it is viewed from public property, and that includes using technology such as a video camera with zoom function to film the content of the window. By the SCOTUS ruling even if you believe you have covered your window but there is still a gap that can be seen through, it is fair game for filming whether by the average citizen or law enforcement. A window is a wall that can be seen through. Xavier is a similar concept to standing on the sidewalk with a video camera looking through a window, because xavier is in fact a video camera that just uses a technology other than optics to create the image. Such a technology renders the walls into windows. However, there are means to cover the walls such that privacy can be restored. Katz does not defeat that. What LEGAL THEORY do you have to defend this as a forth amendment violation as opposed to a first amendment protected activity?
1
@nic.h Kyllo was covered in this video and he quotes scalia.. If you listened, he said it did not apply to Xavier. Further, given Kyllo was in 2001 and since then thermal imaging has become as ubiquitous as optical video cameras it's hard to see how Kyllo would stand up today. Lastly, it's important to note that thermal imagines does not have a means to cover walls similar to how one may cover a window, in order to restore privacy. Xavier does. It is thus hard to see how Xavier does not fit more closely into first amendment protections allowing the filming of anything visible from public property, including the contents of a residence as seen through an uncovered window. Hopefully you can see the similarities.
1
@jannikheidemann3805 Yet. The general public didn't expect to be able to share videos with each other instantly, until technology made that cheap and ubiquitous. Xavier is such a technology for transparent walls.
1
@XJWill1 By that argument, shining a flashlight at a home would be considered a search, as would the existence of the sun. 🤷‍♂️ What precedent can you point to that the active nature of the technology matters, and how do you get from that to it constituting a search for forth amendment purposes?
1
@XJWill1 If it isn't a search, it isn't a forth amendment violation and thus isn't relevant to this conversation. Everything gives off radiation, I don't care about your hysteria. Shining any flashlight, even the dimmest, at a wall of someones home is sending radiation at their home. By definition if you can't notice something taking place, it can not be an intrusion.
1
@TheJimmbobobjones False. Filming through an uncovered window viewable from public property is not a crime. Peepjng occurs when you are viewing a window from within the private property associated with the window. SCOTUS and the appeals court have been clear on this and is the basis for all these creepy "audit" channels here on youtube. If I can see inside your house from the sidewalk, be that through a window, open door or otherwise, I can film that all day long as a first amendment protected activity. Specifically, the protection applies to ANYTHING I can see from public property and the naked eye is not the standard. The court has ruled that the use of aids, such as optical multipliers (binoculars and telescopes) is amongst the protected activities. So the question remains, given a window is a transparent wall, that a video camera captures things the naked eye can not, and that xavier is a video camera that renders all walls transparent whilst still allowing the possibility of covering to restore privacy, it's hard to see how this would not be a first amendment protected activity.
1
Office workers trying to find shortcuts for their office work? Well gosh, whoever would have thunk. If police could automate their jobs and just get a pay cheque, they would, just like every other worker. That cops are trying to do this isn't surprising or disturbing. It's expected. That's why the need for warrants exist. What's shocking and disturbing is that the judges are signing off on the warrants. The check and balance that's supposed to prevent these kinds of things isn't happening. That's the issue.
1
What is the difference between standing on public property using Xavier to record everything it can see, and doing the same thing with a video camera through say an uncovered window? Genuine question because I see no practical difference between the two scenarios and the supreme court has ruled the camera is first amendment protected. Could you explain the difference from a legal theory perspective?
1
Orwell's 1984 isn't profectic. It isn't about the future, it's about life as it was in post ww2 1948. If you're younger than 76, you've never lived in a world other than the one talked about in 1984. The US founders weren't brilliant nor original. They took established mainstream political philosophy from England.
1