Arons v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Delaware

How later courts describe this case

• holding that using pole cameras to view outdoor areas surrounding a home and easily observable by people passing by does not violate the Fourth Amendment
• assuming that the audio component of a video recorder is subject to Title III
• stating " Martinez-Salazar ... pulls the plug on the Swain dictum and requires us to address the harmless-error question as an original matter"
• “Although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.”
• Supreme Court of Michigan and United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, respectively, holding that peremptory challenge errors are subject to harmless-error analysis
• “The use of video equipment and cameras to record activity visible to the naked eye does not ordinarily violate the Fourth Amendment.”
• "The federal wiretap law does not cover video surveillance where no audio recording is made."
• the “substitution of a camera for in-person surveillance does not offend the Fourth Amendment”