Q&A: Security or Surveillance?

Q. I live in a condominium in Fort Lauderdale. Cameras have been installed in the complex for security purposes, but I feel like I am being watched all the time by the board president of the building. He knows at all times the ins and outs or the things we do when we neighbors are together downstairs by sending email regarding our actions—which are only friendly. What to do in that case?

                      —Somebody’s Watching Me

A. Alessandra Stivelman, Esq., partner at the Hollywood law firm of Eisinger Law, says, “Since cameras are becoming more affordable, they are naturally becoming more prevalent in community associations—generally for security reasons. However, there are many laws, both state and federal, that may impact the association’s authority to install cameras in the common elements of a condominium and record audio therefrom. In addition, the association’s governing documents may also impact the board’s authority to install security cameras. 

“First and foremost, the association may not have had the authority to install cameras in the common elements if the cameras that were installed are deemed a material alteration to the association’s common elements. In Florida, the Condominium Act prohibits certain material alterations or improvements to the common elements without either the approval required in the association’s declaration or, if the declaration is silent, the statute requires approval of at least 75% of the voting interests. Older arbitration cases have found that the addition of cameras and supporting apparatus constitute a material alteration to the common elements requiring compliance with applicable law. However, newer cases have deemed the installation of certain cameras not to be material in nature. These determinations are made on a case by case basis. 

“Assuming the association had the authority to install security cameras on the common elements, then the issue is one of whether the recording is in violation of Florida law. In Florida, it is illegal to record an oral communication unless the people communicating know of the recording and consent. However, not all conversations are subject to legal protection. Under Florida law, an oral communication is considered a communication that is made with the expectation that it would remain private and not be recorded or heard publicly. The Florida Supreme Court has held that for an oral conversation to be protected under Section 934.03, Florida Statutes, the speaker must have an actual subjective expectation of privacy, along with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable. In determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, the courts consider the location of the conversation, the type of communication at issue, and the way the communication was made. Accordingly, in the event the association’s security cameras were installed in a public area wherein the owners are aware of the cameras and have no expectation of privacy, then there is likely nothing that can be done to prevent the recording. 


Related Articles

Q&A: Rules for Disclosing to Rule-Breakers

Q&A: Rules for Disclosing to Rule-Breakers

40-Year Building Inspections

Is Your Condo Ready?

Disease & Disclosure

Preserving Privacy in the Pandemic

Touchless Technology vs. COVID-19

CCTV, Video Intercoms, & Remote Access Control Can Help

Keeping an Often Digital Paper Trail

Best Practices for Maintaining Community Association Records

Census 2020

Be Counted Safely During COVID-19