Covert VideoNow, if you’re saying to yourself, “This is very vague”, I agree. However two separate defendants also attempted that defense and lost. In United States v. John BRIO, Steve Alon N0. 97-4143 and United States v. The SPY FACTORY, INC, Ronald Kimball, Marlin Richardson and Tracy Ford No. S 1 95 cr 737 (SS), both cases attempted to have the charges dismissed due to 18.2-2512 and 18.2-2511 being unconstitutionally vague. In the SPY FACTORY case, the defendants also attempted to argue that section 2512 conflicts with Section 2511(2)(d) which explicitly permits the interception of communications so long as least one party to the conversation consents to such interception. Even though the Court stated that it was somewhat troubled by aspects of the enforcement of these laws they none the less denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss portions of the indictment on the ground of vagueness. I often laugh when I see a web site that has audio with video display, “It is the responsibility of the Buyer (not the Distributor), to ascertain and obey all applicable local, state and federal laws............”. In my view, the dealers that have Covert Video with Audio advertised for sale are in violation of 18.2-2512(1)©. It is unlawful under this section to advertise for sale a surreptitious device. In UNITED STATES v. Richard Lee BAST and Redex Corporation, No. 72-2132 a search warrant was obtained in violation of 18.2-2512 when Redex Corporation placed in a brochure a advertisement for a small tape recorder. According to the brochure, “The tape recorder secretly tapes a conversation, interview, conference or lecture while in your shirt pocket”. In another section of the brochure it stated: extremely sensitive pick up to 75 feet. Whether it’s a face-to-face conversation, an around-the-table conference with a sizable group, or a lecture in a large hall or a secret intelligence investigation- BINAURAL compensates automatically for each situtation......You are free to concentrate on the proceedings while everything spoken is taped. Now think about it, if the Govt. can get a search warrant based on the advertisement of a micro tape recorder that is “placed in your shirt pocket”, then a smoke detector camera with audio is a open and shut case. If that same company then sales a device to the Buyer, they are again in violation of 18.2-2512 for the sale of any surreptitious device. When the Buyer takes possession of the item, at that point the Buyer is in violation. You may think that the Govt. will never go after the buyer, however people were charged after several New York spy shops were raided back in 1995. Customs and the FBI charged the buyer after search warrants were served on the spy shops and records indicated who the buyers were. The bottom line is, do you really want to take a chance on buying or selling a item that could place you in a Federal Prison for up to 5 years? In 1995 more than forty spy shops were raided. A large number of the owners either went to jail or were placed on probation along with some of their customers. If you feel you need the audio, then go to your local Police Department or Sheriff’s Office and get them involved. Otherwise, stick with the video. |