They also recommend that you do not tell the babysitter that the camera is present on the theory that nobody will expose her true nature when she is being watched.
A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.
Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Utah also prohibit trespassing on private property to conduct surveillance of people there.
Otherwise, it seems that the parent is allowing the harm to happen, when he or she could have prevented it, and just as culpable as the babysitter.
In a system where we do not punish for thought, only for actions, it seems inconsistent to install secret cameras without warning to those who will be videotaped.
The patchwork is complex because the federal laws don't pre-empt the local ones. " You can go there and click on your state to see the general laws applicable to your application, you may also need to consult attorneys.
So your local jurisdiction could make a law more stringent than the federal one, or the state one. You can find The Center for Social & Legal Research website for privacy issues at: " 635. Also, to find out whether your state, has a specific law addressing hidden cameras, go to the a notice or posting that there is surveillance equipment.While the majority of laws dealing with video recording privacy issues tend to allow surreptitious recording and monitoring of video activity under most circumstances without notification of any of the parties involved, it is highly recommended that you consult with your local or state law enforcement or an attorney who specializes in this area to comply with all local and regulations prior to utilization of video surveillance and monitoring.Your private investigator is well versed in such laws and as a rule of thumb; you should not have to worry about this when hiring a professional investigator.The court decided that since there was an absence of state action, the Constitution did not protect the nanny's privacy in someone else's house.The court also held that a videotape without sound did not violate the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, but furthermore, that sound was admissible because the parents had consented to their child being taped.This protects the parents from prosecution, and helps prevent any abuse of the child. P., Electronics, 865 South Figueroa Street, 29th Floor, Los Angeles, California, 90017-2571, (Los Angeles Co.) Group Profile: Tech-Wise Legal Representation.