How do defense attorneys challenge sensor-triggered “smart” surveillance in Georgia?
Evidence from sensor-triggered or automated “smart” surveillance systems can be challenged in Georgia on grounds relating to its reliability and the circumstances of its collection. These systems present particular questions because they operate automatically rather than through direct human observation.
The reliability of the system is a central concern. Automated systems can be affected by factors such as how they are triggered, calibrated, and maintained, so whether a particular system reliably captured what is claimed can be examined. The dependability of the system bears on the weight of its output.
What the evidence shows is examined. Sensor-triggered recordings may capture only portions of events or particular moments, so what the resulting evidence actually demonstrates, as opposed to how it is characterized, can be relevant. The completeness and context of the evidence are examined.
The circumstances of collection can be relevant. Where such surveillance captured private activity, questions can arise under Georgia’s surveillance provisions about whether the collection was lawful. The lawfulness of the collection is examined where applicable.
Challenging sensor-triggered surveillance generally focuses on the reliability of the system, what the resulting evidence actually shows, and the lawfulness of its collection. The dependability of the automated system, the completeness of the evidence, and the circumstances of collection are the considerations on which such challenges rest. Because these systems capture only what triggers them, the resulting record may show fragments of an event while omitting the context around it. Since these systems capture only what triggers them, the resulting record may show fragments of an event while omitting the surrounding context.