Backyard Video and a Hot Mic
A workers' compensation carrier retains you to surveil a claimant receiving total disability benefits for a back injury, suspected of helping run a landscaping business from his home. Authorization: three consecutive days, up to 12 hours per day, $4,800 cap. You park on the public street. The backyard is enclosed by a six-foot privacy fence; you can see over it only from an eight-foot stepladder that would have to stand on the neighbor's driveway. A directional microphone at 60 feet picks up the claimant talking with a customer in his driveway. A county park walking trail runs along the rear property line. The neighbor's doorbell camera points at your parking spot.
1. Evaluate each vantage point available to you: the public street, the ladder on the neighbor's driveway, and the park trail. What is permissible and what is not?
Read the worked answer
Public street - permissible. Observation and video from a public place of what is visible to the public is the foundation of lawful surveillance. Keep the vehicle lawful, keep the camera pointed at the subject's areas, and log times.
Neighbor's driveway with a ladder - impermissible as planned. Two independent failures:
- The driveway is private property. Setting up equipment there without the owner's permission is a trespass, and the neighbor's doorbell camera means your presence is documented.
- Even setting aside the trespass, raising yourself eight feet to look over a six-foot fence is deliberately defeating a privacy barrier the subject erected. A fenced backyard used for family activity is the classic expectation-of-privacy area. Filming into it invites a privacy claim that would taint the entire file and the carrier's use of it.
Park trail - permissible, with discipline. Standing on public park land and filming what is visible from there is fine. Do not leave the trail, do not shoot through or over the subject's fence from close range, do not use a ladder against the fence, and do not film into windows or doorways of the residence.
Practical rule: if the only way to get the image is to defeat a barrier or stand somewhere you have no right to be, the image is not worth the case.
2. The directional microphone captures the claimant talking with a customer in his driveway. Analyze the audio issue under Ohio law and state what you do.
Read the worked answer
Ohio is a one-party-consent state. A person may record a conversation to which that person is a party, or where a party to the conversation consents. Recording a conversation between two other people, where you are not a party and no participant consents, is prohibited interception.
Application here: you are parked on the street. The claimant and the customer are the parties; you are not. Recording them with a directional mic is not one-party consent, it is third-party capture. That the conversation is outdoors and audible does not create consent, and "it was loud enough to hear" is not the test.
Action: kill the audio. Do not record the driveway conversation, do not run a parabolic or shotgun mic at conversations in which you are not a participant, and do not try to become a party by approaching and chatting - that is manufactured consent and it blows the surveillance.
Also: if any audio already exists on the file, quarantine it, tell the case manager and counsel, and do not put it in the report. Video without sound is the product; audio capture of others' conversations is a liability that can suppress the good evidence along with the bad.
3. Mid-shift the neighbor walks out and asks what you are doing. The next morning the client emails asking you to post a short clip to a shared drive and to "send the funniest 10 seconds" to the adjuster's group chat. How do you handle both?
Read the worked answer
The neighbor: be brief, truthful, and non-disclosing. You are a licensed investigator working on a matter; you will not discuss who the client is, who the subject is, or what the case is about. Do not pose as law enforcement, a utility worker, or a delivery driver - misrepresentation of official status is a line you never cross, and pretext that depends on it is not a judgment call. If the neighbor objects to your parking spot, move; a parking dispute is a needless record of your presence. Document the contact.
The client's request:
- Shared drive: acceptable if it is the carrier's secure system and access is limited to people with a need to know. Confirm in writing who has access.
- "Funniest 10 seconds" for a group chat: decline. Editing video for entertainment, sharing it beyond the claims file, or narrating a disability claimant's movements for amusement converts a work product into a privacy and defamation exhibit. It also destroys the evidentiary value of the clip by showing selective editing.
- Response: offer the full, unedited, time-stamped segments with a written summary, and note in the file that you recommended against informal distribution.
Reasoning to state in the file: the value of surveillance is the credibility of the whole record, and one joke clip can cost the carrier the case.