“Smart” doorbells like Ring or Nest give many homeowners a sense of security. Being able to see and hear who is at your door, as well as the potential crime deterrent offered by the presence of the doorbell itself, provides consumers a less expensive way to set up a home security system.

Many of the commercials and advertisements we see for smart doorbells are heartwarming and whimsical, like a kid locked out of the house talking to his dad to find a spare key, or an unsuspecting mail delivery person doing a little dance on the porch when she finds some free snacks. However, we also see not-so-fun viral videos of individuals stealing packages off porches, or attempting to break into cars parked in driveways.

This begs the question – are these videos admissible in court as evidence?

Are doorbell camera videos admissible in court as evidence?

Law enforcement agencies, including several Tennessee police departments, around the country already partner with Ring, using an app called Neighbors. Neighbors is a free app that allows users to upload content from their Ring devices and share with other users, including law enforcement. Law enforcement, however, can only view public and shared content. They may request video or images from Ring users, but only if they provide a valid and relevant case number.

And, many times, this partnership is successful. Fox 17 Nashville points out an example where an escaped prisoner was recaptured in Henning, Tennessee after he was spotted on a homeowner’s Ring camera going through an outdoor refrigerator.

What are the Constitutional challenges of using doorbell camera videos in court?

Using smart doorbell video as evidence in court may be a bit complicated. Although Tennessee has its own legislation regarding audio and video recording, smart doorbells are still considered an emerging technology with its own rules and challenges.

Challengers to smart doorbell footage in court state that the video is a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The argument is that when police access this video, it constitutes a warrantless search.

Is using a doorbell camera video in a case an invasion of privacy?

However, a number of other issues come into play. Every American has a right to privacy in and around their home. This includes inside your home and the immediate area surrounding your home, called the “curtilage.” Authorities have no right to search or seize any of your property within the curtilage without a warrant. Therefore, the argument against using Ring or other doorbell footage as evidence is that these doorbells are within the curtilage, and accessing them constitutes a warrantless search.

Has this defense been successful? So far, not particularly. These types of cases boil down to whether or not a crime is committed in public view. In an article about smart doorbells, NBC 3 News pointed to a case in New Mexico where an individual was spotted on a video surveillance camera carrying an assault weapon on the street. The person was charged with a felony, and a Court of Appeals ruled that it was not a warrantless search, as the person was carrying the weapon where anyone could have seen it, video camera or not.

With so many possible scenarios and existing case law, smart doorbells and privacy concerns are an emerging subject area our firm plans to keep watching. In the meantime, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the Sevierville criminal defense attorneys at Delius & McKenzie, PLLC. For experienced representation, call us today at 865-428-8780 or complete our contact form. We offer our services to clients in Sevierville, Pigeon Forge, Seymour, Gatlinburg, and the surrounding areas in Tennessee.