(Hürriyet Newspaper, 22 January 2014)
Battle of the lenses.
No.1 camera placed at angle that looks
directly into the client's home. No.2
camera placed at an angle that looks
at the suspect's door.
The Sincan Major Crimes Court, which handles
objections to decisions made by the Ankara
Public Prosecutor, has delivered an interesting
ruling. The suit in question was opened when
tension developed between two neighbors because
of security cameras.
A woman named S.S. complained when she saw
that her neighbor S.K., with whom S.S. does not
get along, had installed a security camera aimed
at S.S.'s front door. In the petition submitted to
the prosecutor, lawyer Seçil Özdikmenli noted that
the sound and view-capable camera was looking
at her client S.S.'s front door. The petition asserted
that "people coming and going are observed. This
is a violation of the sanctity of private life."
S.S. wanted S.K. to be penalized for this but Public
Prosecutor Hasan Dursun found that S.K., who lives
alone, had installed the camera for her own security
and that there was no evidence that S.K. had any
intention of violating S.S.'s privacy. Dursun declared
that there were no grounds for the suit to proceed.
The Sincan court, however, in response to lawyer
Özdikmenli's objection to Dursun's ruling, voided
the prosecutor's decision, noting that "there are
sufficient grounds for a suit against the suspect to
Prosecutor Dursun then reevaluated the case (!) and
prepared a new indictment, asserting that "the suspect
installed a camera with a view of the complainant's
home and is therefore guilty of violating the complainant's
privacy." Dursun asked for a sentence of from one to
three years for S.K.