FLORIDA IS USING & ABUSING ARMORED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE VEHICLES TO SPY ON ITS CITIZENS

Clearwater Criminal Attorneys have attacked the proliferation of surveillance cameras in Tampa Bay only to find that the den of crime known as St. Petersburg Florida recently launched its own fancy Armored Surveillance Van with multiple video cameras aimed against it's citizens, presumably to quell their hidden criminal impulses and to enjoy a bit of eavesdropping. One wonders how this might be necessary when recent FDLE crime statistics proclaim that violent crime in Florida and in the Tampa Bay area is down.

Van's View: St. Petersburg Mayor & Police Chief 

The Chief of Police for the St. Petersburg Police Department and the mayor of St. Petersburg want to place the vehicle in 'high crime areas' where it will record everything that happens twenty-four hours a day. Somehow that doesn't seem fair. Shouldn't we first protect our esteemed leaders? 

Since our city elders are more concerned with possible crime than protecting the privacy rights of their citizens perhaps the van should first be parked in front of their yards as a beautiful and beneficial upgrade to their neighborhoods using facial recognition software to properly detail that their lives are not criminal. And as they drive to work why not let the surveillance vehicle follow them shrouding them in the warm glow of its protective video cocoon while recording their every activity so that we can all enjoy the Big Brother benefits that comes from taking away the privacy rights of others.

WHEN IS EAVESDROPPING BY ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE VIA VIDEO, AUDIO OR DATA A CRIME?

National Electronic Surveillance regulations of audio or video can be found in the Wiretap Act which requires that a Judge make a formal finding of probable cause that a crime has or is about to be committed before the Government may listen in on your conversations with your favorite Clearwater Criminal Defense Lawyer.  
Because the federal standards were enacted with a view to restrict Government eavesdropping into telephonic conversations long before the internet, cell phones and large scale use of video surveillance, state governments have taken up the slack with State Electronic Surveillance laws. Yet even the better written state laws such as Florida's which strives to lean toward privacy have many exceptions.
Electronic surveillance has been broadened by many states to cover other 'data communications' as follows:

Hidden yet there, Camera Obscura 

Electronic surveillance involves the traditional laws on wiretapping, which can be defined as any interception of a telephone transmission by accessing the telephone signal itself--and eavesdropping--listening in on conversations without the consent of the parties.  States have extended these laws to cover data communications as well as telephone surveillance....In Florida, interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited. State and federal policymakers face the challenge of balancing security needs via electronic surveillance against individual privacy. 

The delicate balancing of privacy rights with security needs is something each state has had to grapple with in determining criminal standards. Here is the criminal law in Florida as it relates to use and abuse of electronic communications:

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.—(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized. 

Florida law sets the standard for the rest of the nation in protecting privacy rights over intrusion. Yet despite the law in Florida Clearwater Criminal Attorneys find that Tampa Courts have held that where there is no expectation of privacy such as in a store, there is no privacy. Everything you do at the store is on video from the moment you park, enter and slug the manager for turning off the blue light special just as you reach for it.

TAMPA SHOULD PULL DOWN THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS & MOVE THEM INTO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO KEEP HIM HONEST

During the Republican Convention the beleaguered city of Tampa was blanketed with over sixty cameras to watch the rioters, radicals and anarchist whom the city was certain were planning our destruction, but the mischief makers never materialized. Fear not, as long as the humidity is above eighty percent our city will remain safe from saboteurs. Instead of the massive arrests the city prepared for, alas only two protestors were thrown into jail and even those two arrests seemed two too many for your favorite Clearwater Criminal Defense Lawyer who once thought Americans were born with the right to protest.

Vermeer, Camera Obscura Proof?

But what to do with the all those fancy video cameras? Our right to privacy demands that Tampa take the Government video cameras down. The Government should not be conducting video surveillance on its citizens without probable cause of wrongdoing. This is especially true in Tampa Bay because of prior law enforcement overzealous surveillance in Florida in which citizens shopping at a store were later subjected to unlawful searches with Deputies gaining entry into homes by posing as utility workers and Deputies using fake subpoenas.
Here's an excerpt from today's editorial from the Tampa Bay Times that balances the right of privacy versus the need for public safety exactly right:

 Law-abiding residents in public spaces should not be subject to around-the-clock surveillance by their local government... While (the Mayor of Tampa) is open to moving some cameras out of downtown and into high-crime areas, the mayor argued the devices are "valuable tools" in fostering the sense of security that would make downtown a more attractive place to visit and do business. People have grown accustomed to cameras, he said, and shutting them off would be a "colossal waste."...
The city has an obligation, especially after fanning the fears of convention-related violence, to balance public safety with civil liberties. Walking downtown or visiting Curtis Hixon Park is not consent for a digital search...fight these government eyes in the sky.

Since the Mayor of Tampa is keen to keep these cameras, why not place all sixty cameras in the Mayor's office where citizens can watch him babbling about every day. The 'valuable tools' will keep him honest knowing we're watching while protecting him too. If you believe your rights are being violated by law enforcement or even by the Honorable Mayor of Tampa call a Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney.

SOMEWHERE ORWELL IS SMILING: SECRET VIDEOS MADE BY THE PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE WERE USED IN SEARCH WARRANTS BASED ON WHERE PEOPLE SHOP IN LARGO FLORIDA

Imagine a dark Orwellian world where everything you do is on video and everything you do is closely examined in the hope it can be used as evidence against you in the future.

Well, if you live in Pinellas County, Florida you don't have to imagine that world anymore, as your Pinellas County Sheriff's Office secretly put hundreds of customers under video surveillance for over a year at a plant store called Simply Hydroponics. Law enforcement then used identifiers of the customers, such as the tags on their vehicles to track them, spy on them and to obtain search warrants which contained at best highly unlikely information.

This should make every American angry and even makes your favorite Clearwater Defense Lawyer despair for the future of our country.
In one case law enforcement officers placed a plant store customer's home under surveillance then swore under oath in a search warrant that they could smell the marijuana plants and heard the distinct noise of foliage being broken from within what they designated as a suspected marijuana grow house. Our intrepid detectives found a single marijuana plant upon forcing their way into the home.
If there's one thing all of us as Americans should be against it's unbridled government surveillance and the destruction of our privacy rights. Yet we should also agree that the inherent corruption which resulted in officer's telling lies under oath must also be rooted out.
The surveillance, the lies, the misinformation and the failure of law enforcement to abide by basic American standards of Justice should result in the immediate investigations of every law enforcement officer and every prosecutor involved as prosecutors routinely draft, prepare and take the search warrants to Judges for signatures. 
A Grand Jury should immediately be convened by the Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate he highest positions at the Sheriff's Office and at the State Attorney's Office, to find who was responsible for placing the video equipment near the store, to find what other stores or public areas are secretly under surveillance and to bring to justice all of those who did this or allowed this to be done under their watch.

Here are a few excerpts about smell as possible probable cause from the St. Petersburg Times Article: Young plants don't emit an odor, but if a person were growing "hundreds" of mature plants in a structure that wasn't properly sealed, it's "possible" an officer very close to the home would notice the smell...James Woodford of Chattanooga, Tenn., an expert on the topic of marijuana odor, said a large operation vented directly outdoors could generate an occasional "whiff" of marijuana detectable up to 25 to 30 feet away [i.e., less than half the distance between the sidewalk and Underwood's "alleged grow room"]....Law enforcement officers commonly use the smell of marijuana to establish probable cause.
Drug Crimes Trial Lawyer & Criminal Defense Attorney in Clearwater, FL
Times Editorial: America shouldn't be a surveillance society
Video Surveillance – Are Hidden Cameras Legal?
933.07 Issuance of search warrants.—
(1) The judge, upon examination of the application and proofs submitted, if satisfied that probable cause exists for the issuing of the search warrant, shall thereupon issue a search warrant signed by him or her with his or her name of office, to any sheriff and the sheriff’s deputies or any police officer or other person authorized by law to execute process, commanding the officer or person forthwith to search the property described in the warrant or the person named, for the property specified, and to bring the property and any person arrested in connection therewith before the judge or some other court having jurisdiction of the offense.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, based on grounds specified in s. 933.02(4)(d), may obtain a search warrant authorized by this chapter for an area in size up to and including the full extent of the county in which the search warrant is issued. The judge issuing such search warrant shall conduct a court proceeding prior to the issuance of such search warrant upon reasonable notice and shall receive, hear, and determine any objections by property owners to the issuance of such search warrant. Such search warrant may be served by employees or authorized contractors of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Such search warrant may be made returnable at any time up to 6 months from the date of issuance.

933.04 Affidavits.—The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated and no search warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and thing to be seized.

The Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

From Orwell's novel 1984, The three slogans of the Party on the Ministry of Truth Building.