ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE STATE OF GEORGIA FROM
THE GEORGIA SUPERIOR COURT
BRIEF OF PETITIONER
Mary Smith
Attorney for Petitioner
1234 Main Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities ……………………………………………………………………………... 2
Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………. 3
Statement of Issues………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Argument………………………………………………………………………………………. 3-5
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Relief……………………………………………………………………………………………... 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case
Reece v. State, 152 Ga. App. 760,…show more content… Code Ann. § 16-11-62
Secondary Authority
56 A.L.R. Fed. 772 (Originally published in 1982)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Georgia Code Annotated §…show more content… Ga. Code Ann. § 6-11-62 – Unlawful eavesdropping or surveillance provides the following in part:
(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view.
Pursuant to the above, it shows that any person under surveillance should give their consent in being observed, photographed, or recorded. If Slye Karguy did not approve of being observed, this is a violation of his privacy. This could have been legally completed by obtaining a search warrant by going through the proper steps with a judge.
Under 56 A.L.R. Fed. 772 (Originally published in 1982), it states that using an aerial surveillance violates the rights of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person has rights and without a proper warrant issued then that person’s rights have been violated. This demonstrated that the Fourth Amendment protects Slye Karguy against unwarranted searches.
The Superior Court, therefore, erred in dismissing Slye Karguy’s claim and the State should be held liable for the unlawful aerial surveillance of his
