Cameras catching right turn "California Stops"

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

Silly me, I didn't realize our "private" streets were a public place. I guess national security is a little more important to me than who rolled through the stop sign last. But thanks for setting me straight, Big "W".

Do you guys want to get a room?

This does bring up a question. Are our private streets public from a legal perspective?

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by Mama Mia

They needed the cameras tonight...some kids strung fishing line with cans across the parkway waiting for some unsuspecting driver to run into them...I guess they don't realize that this type of incident can cause an accident!!!!

Where would the camera need to be placed and pointed to capture this activity? What I am struggling to understand is who/when/where to put these cameras to deter this crime you all speak of?

I'm really trying to understand how this would work since some of you are convinced it does. I agree if there was a central point of crime (such as an ATM machine) then yes there would be a deterent. But where is that central point in RM? Or better yet, where do you focus the $30,000 worth of cameras to get that deterent? According to F&B all crime would go elewhere as long as we had cameras up. I see a small flaw in this argument.

[Golfingbear]

The cameras will be moveable and locations will be made based on where problems seem to be. My first choice would be at Murieta Parkway and Alameda, the intersection going to the country club. I've sat at the 12th tee of the golf course on Saturday mornings and watch car after car roll through or just plain run that stop sign. In addition golf cart drivers go through it like it isn't even there. Twice when in my golf cart I've been almost ran over by cars rolling through or running the stop sign. You can thank Mike Martel for this great idea. He researched the issue has he has good experience in his profession using observation cameras

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Do you guys want to get a room?

This does bring up a question. Are our private streets public from a legal perspective?

Bird's not my type nor I suspect am I his.

In the context of privacy violations I'd say our streets are "public," just as is the private parking lot at Sunrise Mall. In other contexts the fact it's private property does make a difference, but in invasion of privacy the relevant core question is whether the person had any expectation nobody would see what he/she was doing. That a public restroom is a public restroom, for example, doesn't make it OK to put a secret camera in there, but if you're taking pictures at a baseball game it doesn't really matter for privacy rights purposes IMO whether it's a City owned field or an RMA owned field.

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Bird's not my type nor I suspect am I his.

In the context of privacy violations I'd say our streets are "public,"

I'm more of a blond ponytail type, not so much grey.

Of course you would say they are public, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make your argument. It's funny how when it comes to cameras they are public streets but when it comes to Christmas decorations, all of a sudden they become private streets. What will the answer be next time?

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

What will the answer be next time?

The answer will depend on the question. That's how the law, and much of the rest of reality, works.

When you're talking about a privacy right, the question centers upon the reasonable expectation of privacy. You don't have one when driving down the street in broad daylight, whether on a public street or a private one, as to any observation which others foreseeably present would foreseeably observe. Telephoto lenses and infrared cameras and other intrusive technologies may present another question, but you have no expectation of privacy as to what a neighbor standing on the street corner could see with the naked eye.

Publication for purposes of pillorying people may present trickier (though I think manageable) issues because now you're dealing not with privacy but reputation. But photographing behavior in the open on a populated street for purposes of enforcement does not become a no-no because the street is privately owned.

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

The answer will depend on the question. That's how the law, and much of the rest of reality, works.

A bit condescending, but I expected no less.

I'll save my next response for when you flip flop on the issue when it doesn't suit your agenda.

[Wilbur]

You're not by any chance being contrarian just to be contrary, are you?