Creepy landlord

[Philliefan33]

Update: It appears that the couple who own the property are not in agreement about the details of the security cameras. Sounds like the wife mentioned putting in cameras to monitor the horses and the coming/going of people to the pasture, and her husband decided that if he's going to put in cameras, lets monitor everything. Wife found out about his plans, agrees with the tenants that having cameras that can see the tenants on the patio or in the garage, etc., is not necessary.

The landlords are discussing between themselves, DH and BF are waiting and hoping that the wife prevails.

 

[MichaelB]

That's an interesting development. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

 

[Amethyst]

IANAL but the 4th amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable search." Cameras continually pointed at your home would surely qualify. The Constitution outranks any lease.

 

[Cricky]

IANAL but the 4th amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable search." Cameras continually pointed at your home would surely qualify. The Constitution outranks any lease.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from the government making unreasonable intrusions into our privacy and freedom. Is the landlord a governmental authority, or acting as one? That seems unlikely.

 

[easysurfer]

Update: It appears that the couple who own the property are not in agreement about the details of the security cameras. Sounds like the wife mentioned putting in cameras to monitor the horses and the coming/going of people to the pasture, and her husband decided that if he's going to put in cameras, lets monitor everything. Wife found out about his plans, agrees with the tenants that having cameras that can see the tenants on the patio or in the garage, etc., is not necessary.

The landlords are discussing between themselves, DH and BF are waiting and hoping that the wife prevails.

I'm betting on the wife. Good for her.

 

[Walt34]

IANAL but the 4th amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable search." Cameras continually pointed at your home would surely qualify. The Constitution outranks any lease.

A lot of people confuse this issue. The Constitution applies to governmental actions, not private individuals. That's why Costco can search your cart on the way out of the store - when people sign the membership application they agreed to that.

In the same way, the LL can put cameras anywhere they want on property they own. The tenants are free to accept or reject that action, but I'll agree the waters get muddy when the action takes place after the lease is signed. That's why, if the LL wife in this does not prevail, I'd recommend seeing a local attorney so they'll know what their rights are. But for now since the outcome is uncertain "wait and see" is probably the better approach.

 

[FUEGO]

Thank goodness the LL didn't try to quarter soldiers in the rental, otherwise we'd have genuine 3rd Amendment issues.

 

[Lucantes]

Update: It appears that the couple who own the property are not in agreement about the details of the security cameras. Sounds like the wife mentioned putting in cameras to monitor the horses and the coming/going of people to the pasture, and her husband decided that if he's going to put in cameras, lets monitor everything. Wife found out about his plans, agrees with the tenants that having cameras that can see the tenants on the patio or in the garage, etc., is not necessary.
The landlords are discussing between themselves, DH and BF are waiting and hoping that the wife prevails.

+1. It sounds like we may be heading down the path of communication, understanding and compromise, and not a single lawyer involved.....yet.

 

[Lucantes]

Thank goodness the LL didn't try to quarter soldiers in the rental, otherwise we'd have genuine 3rd Amendment issues.

Only if they were federal troops though right? If they were the LL's private security then there wouldn't be a 3rd Amendment issue right?

 

[tps7742]

The sit down for a face to face conversation would resolve allot of these concerns IMO. I feel there aren't enough ftf conversations these days and as mentioned emails can be taken differently than intended. I didn't realize there were so many conspiracy theorists with varied opinions on this site. I do realize there are bad things that do occur but in general I don't think this is the case. Good luck on your kids getting all of this settled!

 

[sheehs1]

I like the suggestion of a legal consult if this can not be settled reasonably.

In Virginia, in a city and in a neighborhood, I had a situation with a somewhat deranged neighbor who thought it ok to target practice at night. He shot at the outdoor cats (lots of vet bills), shot at the back windows of our cars (could not prove it) and the day I came home to find my daughters upstairs window shattered I called the police. The guys wife did not know what to do with him! He really is on all sorts of mind altering meds. He was shooting at birds without any considering for what was beyond his line of sight.

Long story short, I wanted to install security cameras and was told I could not point them at my neighbors house due to privacy issues. It was called spying. I would think your daughters LL wanting to install security cameras anywhere near the house, pointed towards a window or the outdoor living areas would be the same thing. Should not matter that he owns the property. They have a legal lease.

The guns were confiscated since he was not suppose to shoot a gun in a neighborhood in the city. Have not had a problem since….that I know of anyway.

 

[cyber888]

LandLord's Logic about the cameras: I want to watch my property to make sure you don't destroy it.

Renter's Logic about the cameras: Landlord could be a voyeur and is intruding into our private life after we have signed the lease. As a renter, this raises a red flag if you value privacy knowing that all camera eyes are on you.

 

[easysurfer]

LandLord's Logic about the cameras: I want to watch my property to make sure you don't destroy it.

Renter's Logic about the cameras: Landlord could be a voyeur and is intruding into our private life after we have signed the lease. As a renter, this raises a red flag if you value privacy knowing that all camera eyes are on you.

IMO, a reasonable compromised is camera allowed is areas deemed open to the public, but anywhere too private brings up images of Tony Perkins in Psycho.

 

[Texas Proud]

I think that if you are renting a place you have the right to NOT have a camera unless they spelled it out in the lease that they could...

I would refuse them to install... and if they did I would remove them... of course hanging on to them to give back at the end of the lease...


This is where actually reading the lease make a difference...

 

[Aerides]

If LL wins over his Wife, and they come back saying "yup we're putting in cameras" I would not bother with a lawyer, but with a realtor to find a new place to live. Unless they get ridiculous and won't let you break the lease...then a lawyer so you can leave with no penalty and gtfo.

But fighting to stay put sans camera with a LL who really wants it, - even if you win - who wants to keep living there? I wouldn't trust my privacy at that point.

Sometimes winning isn't really worth it.

 

[Philliefan33]

This is where actually reading the lease make a difference...

DD and BF each read the lease before signing. There is nothing about cameras in the lease. In fact, each one found loopholes in the lease that are in the tenants' favor -- but of course they did not point these out to the landlord.

In her dealings thus far with the LL, DD thinks he's "not very smart". They are still waiting for a decision from the LL couple. DD and BF have decided that if the LL plans to install cameras that can see the doors, garage, or back yard, they will pull out the lease and argue that since cameras are not specified in the lease, they are not allowed. If LL still insists on installing cameras, DD and BF will look for a new place.

Also heard more backstory. Apparently, the horses got out of the pasture the day after DD and BF took possession of the keys to the house. (They did not start moving in until a couple of days later.) But the horse people are blaming the new tenants for letting the horses out. Which they didn't. Now the horse gate is locked and only the horse people have keys, but maybe the horse people want to keep an eye on the tenants too!

 

[FUEGO]

Also heard more backstory. Apparently, the horses got out of the pasture the day after DD and BF took possession of the keys to the house. (They did not start moving in until a couple of days later.) But the horse people are blaming the new tenants for letting the horses out. Which they didn't. Now the horse gate is locked and only the horse people have keys, but maybe the horse people want to keep an eye on the tenants too!

Sounds like a $9 lock might be a lot more effective than hundreds of $ in security cameras...

 

[Badger]

Next thing you know the LL will be operating a drone with a camera at your window.

Cheers!

 

[Lucantes]

Sounds like a $9 lock might be a lot more effective than hundreds of $ in security cameras...

+1
So the entire thing got blown out of proportion:
LL was told by horse tenants that horses got out and it must have been the new house tenants.
LL decided to possibly believe (maybe?) or at least err on the side of caution and then came up with silly plan to put cameras everywhere on the property (probably misunderstanding what his wife said to actually do as most of us men are wont to do).
House tenants tell Mom & Dad, who tell internet, who immediately jump to the worst possible conclusion and recommend lawsuits, public humiliation and possible 3rd Amendment violation action with the Supremes?
how am I doing so far?
If I were the house tenants, and the LL actually comes back and decides they want to be able to see horse areas only (gate and pastures) then I have no problem. If however they want to see any part that I am renting (house area and 1 acre as OP mentioned) then I am either leaving (after I explain specifically why in person and in writing) or they will change their plans. Legally I would think that you would be completely fine in doing so (not a lawyer but I play one on the internet!) and even if you are not then let them spend the money and sue me or respond to my suit etc.

 

[Walt34]

Next thing you know the LL will be operating a drone with a camera at your window.

Cheers!

It might be so small they won't even see it.

Speaking of which, I just received mine in the mail today. Really, this is a TV camera and transmitter that is used on a small "park flyer" airplane. The goggles are for FPV, or First Person View, that is becoming popular with model airplane and drone pilots.

And this is just hobby-grade stuff, for more serious money they get very small.

There, doesn't that put your mind at ease?