OUR BLOG

If a prosecutor has surveillance footage, you might feel your case is hopeless. The reality is, this powerful evidence is not foolproof. The Law Office of Jacob Martinez, a Denver, CO criminal defense attorney, focuses on challenging the reliability of surveillance footage. We investigate technical flaws like poor image quality and legal issues such as a compromised chain of custody or constitutional violations. By exposing these vulnerabilities, we can work to have the footage excluded or cast significant doubt on its integrity, completely changing the direction of your case.

What Colorado Courts Require for Surveillance Evidence Authentication

Before any surveillance footage reaches a Colorado jury, prosecutors must authenticate the evidence under the Colorado Rules of Evidence. Authentication requires proving the video is correct footage and accurately depicts the events in question. According to Colorado case law, this doesn’t require the person who recorded the video to testify; any witness with firsthand knowledge can authenticate footage.

However, authentication problems arise when there are gaps in the chain of custody, technical malfunctions, or questions about when and how the recording was made. Denver criminal defense lawyers can challenge authentication by exposing these weaknesses.

Common Technical Issues That Weaken Colorado Surveillance Evidence

Surveillance video can be persuasive, but technical flaws can quickly undermine its reliability in court.

Frequent issues:

• Wrong timestamps
• Low resolution
• Poor lighting or blocked views
• Corrupted storage
• Distorted transfers

When these problems exist, a Colorado criminal defense lawyer can challenge the footage’s reliability. Quick action can be key to protecting your defense.

Common Criminal Cases Involving Surveillance Footage

Surveillance footage is often used in a variety of criminal cases in Denver, including:

• Retail theft and burglary: Store security cameras often capture alleged shoplifting or break-ins.
• Assault cases: Video from bars, clubs, or street cameras may show altercations.
• Drug offenses: Law enforcement sometimes relies on covert camera recordings in investigations.
• DUI / DWI: Red-light cameras and dash cams may document alleged violations.
• Domestic Violence: Security cameras, apartment building surveillance, or Ring doorbell footage may record incidents.

These cases often hinge on video interpretation, which means a skilled defense attorney can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Fourth Amendment Challenges to Colorado Surveillance Collection

Not all surveillance footage is legally obtained. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and Colorado courts have addressed this when surveillance crosses constitutional boundaries.

In cases involving prolonged pole camera surveillance, Colorado courts examine whether defendants had reasonable expectations of privacy in monitored areas. If law enforcement directed private parties to conduct surveillance or obtained footage through improper warrants, the evidence may be suppressible.

Types of Colorado Surveillance Evidence That Can Be Challenged

Different surveillance methods present unique challenges for Colorado criminal defense attorneys:

• Body camera footage: Subject to perspective bias favoring law enforcement officers
• Pole cameras: Constitutional issues when monitoring private property for extended periods
• Store security cameras: Authentication problems and chain of custody gaps
• Traffic cameras: Technical malfunctions and timestamp inaccuracies
• Cell phone videos: Hearsay issues with audio content and authentication challenges

Under Colorado statute §24-31-902, there’s a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility when officers fail to activate body cameras during important interactions.

Hearsay Problems with Audio in Colorado Surveillance Videos

Surveillance footage often contains audio elements, creating hearsay issues under Colorado Rules of Evidence 801-807. While visual evidence may be admissible, audio statements by people not testifying typically constitute hearsay. Prosecutors may need to redact audio portions or find applicable exceptions. Common exceptions include:

• Excited utterances
• Statements against interest
• Defendant admissions

However, experienced Denver criminal defense attorneys can argue these exceptions don’t apply.

Chain of Custody Issues in Colorado Digital Evidence Cases

In Colorado criminal cases, digital evidence must have a clear, documented chain of custody. Breaks in this process can raise doubts about authenticity. Key factors include:

• Recording every person who handled the footage
• Documenting every transfer between systems
• Tracking all file access and modifications
• Preserving original files without alteration

Speak with an experienced Denver criminal defense lawyer to challenge questionable evidence.

Colorado Privacy Law Violations in Surveillance Cases

Colorado has specific laws governing surveillance activities. Under Colorado Revised Statute §18-7-801, unauthorized recording of individuals with expectations of privacy constitutes criminal invasion of privacy.

When surveillance violates these statutes, evidence may be inadmissible regardless of relevance to criminal charges. Private businesses and individuals who record others without proper consent may face criminal liability.

Speak to a Denver, CO Criminal Defense Lawyer About Surveillance Evidence

Surveillance footage does not guarantee a conviction. At the Law Office of Jacob Martinez, our experienced defense team knows how to challenge video evidence through authentication issues, constitutional violations, and other legal or technical flaws.

If you are facing criminal charges involving surveillance in Denver, call 720-246-6700 or contact us online for a free consultation. Our Denver criminal defense attorney has a proven record of challenging prosecution evidence and will fight to protect your rights and seek the best possible outcome.