Legal Brief: The Problems with Modern Warrantless Surveillance
December 22, 2025
Types : Bylined Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court may rule on a new Fourth Amendment case that could impact the security industry.
In 1949, a brilliant and prescient author known as George Orwell wrote the famous book,1984. The novel served as a warning against the dangers of authoritarianism, constant surveillance, and the manipulation of truth. Orwell depicted a dystopian state where people are monitored every second of the day by an unaccountable and overbearing government.
The lessons conveyed by Orwell are increasingly applicable today – particularly in law enforcement and security. The combination of emerging technologies and zealous policing presents a risk to fundamental civil liberties, such as the rights granted under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
As a former military and federal prosecutor, I have a predisposition in favor of law enforcement; however, my job was not to win – my job was to do justice. Sometimes justice requires that we balance the goals of law enforcement with a respect for fundamental rights. You can do both. Admittedly, it is not always easy.
In prior columns in August 2020 and February 2022, I wrote about two modern warrantless surveillance cases focused on sustained video monitoring of criminal suspects. A quick recap:
In United States v. Moore-Bush, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the government’s warrantless use of a pole camera to continuously record the front of the defendants’ home for eight months (read the full column at www.securityinfowatch.com/21146837). In United States v. Tuggle, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that police did not need a warrant to secretly record all activity in front of a drug trafficking suspect’s home 24 hours a day for 18 months (read the full column at www.securityinfowatch.com/21254216).
Now a new case involving a similar topic could potentially be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.