New Search
., <br /> LANKSTON Jeff <br /> From: RHAY Tim W <br /> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:21 AM <br /> To: LANKSTON Jeff <br /> Subject: FW: WebNideo Cameras at Skate Parks <br /> I asked a couple more questions based on my previous interaction with Bob B. on the technical part of the installation. The <br /> answers continue to be entirely reassuring that the installation as we envision it will not cause legal difficulties for the City. <br /> -Tim R <br /> QUESTION: May I share this communication with Bob Blanchard? <br /> Original Message <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 6:19 PM <br /> To: RHAY Tim W <br /> Subject: RE: WebNideo Cameras at Skate Parks <br /> Tim, <br /> The "pan and zoom" does not concern me unless the zoom is pretty powerful. <br /> One Oregon Court of Appeals case upheld use of a 135mm lens on a 35mm camera, <br /> on grounds that it merely aided in recording what could be seen without a <br /> camera. By contrast, the same court invalidated a search that used a <br /> telescope to spot a marijuana plant inside someone's house. Although the law <br /> here is unsettled, the test seems to be whether the technological enhancement <br /> allows you to see something that couldn't otherwise be seen from a public <br /> place. Here, because the zoom would only show things that could be seen if <br /> one stood closer to the skater, on public property, I doubt there would be a <br /> problem. (That's in contrast to the police searches that use a telescope or <br /> camera because they don't have a warrant to enter onto the suspect's <br /> property.) And, because the camera will be visible to the subjects, I don't <br /> think anyone can claim surprise. Essentially the same analysis would apply <br /> to using a low -light camera. <br /> Hope that helps. <br /> Jerome Lidz <br /> Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C. <br /> (541) 485 -0220 <br /> jerome.s.lidz @harrang.com <br /> THIS MESSAGE IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION UNDER THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT OR <br /> ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. <br /> »> RHAY Tim W 10/30/00 04:31 PM »> <br /> Thank you for the prompt response. The query was based on expressed concerns <br /> of some City staffers that the camera placement would incur the City legal <br /> liability, not on actual knowledge of situations in which it had been a <br /> problem. Your response deals with those concerns. <br /> Re: "technological enhancements" - Among the options we've been given by <br /> various vendors were features like "pan and zoom" capability. The images seen <br /> would still be essentially what one could see at the skate park in person. <br /> Another thought would be some type of enhancement for low light conditions. <br /> (Vandalism often takes place after hours. The skate parks officially close at <br /> dark, the larger parks at 11:00 PM.) <br /> Do you see any problems with these types of features? <br /> -Tim Rhay <br /> Original Message <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 3:57 PM <br /> 1 <br />