FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Neighbors for 26 Years
Mr. Paytas, the defendant, and the plaintiff have been neighbors for 26 years.
The plaintiff lives with her husband and their daughter.
Mr. Paytas lives with his wife and daughter on occasion.
Cameras Installed in 2017
In 2017, Mr. Paytas installed video surveillance cameras on the front corners of his home.
He clarified that he installed cameras, not spotlights.
Judge Judy asked what prompted him to install the cameras.
Mr. Paytas stated he kept finding used condoms in his backyard.
He claimed these condoms were right over her fence.
He attributed them to the plaintiff's youngest daughter, Tara, and her boyfriend.
Mr. Paytas also alleged that Tara's boyfriend was selling drugs in front of the house.
He said this situation was getting "way out of hand."
No Discussion with Plaintiff
Judge Judy asked if Mr. Paytas had discussed these issues with the plaintiff.
He responded that he had not spoken with the plaintiff in years.
He confirmed he had not made a police report about the alleged drug activity.
He also confirmed he had no video or photos to show regarding the drug activity.
Plaintiff's Complaint About Cameras
The plaintiff's main complaint was about one of Mr. Paytas's cameras.
She claimed it was not directed solely on his property.
Instead, it included her property, specifically her backyard and pool.
She considered this an invasion of her privacy.
The plaintiff wanted the camera removed or restructured.
She also sought monetary damages.
Defendant's Counterclaims
Mr. Paytas claimed the plaintiff installed multiple lights.
He stated these lights interfered with his cameras taking pictures.
He also claimed the plaintiff had been harassing him for two years.
Mr. Paytas sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.
He also filed a counterclaim for harassment.
Police Involvement
The plaintiff called the police on Mr. Paytas regarding his cameras.
Mr. Paytas stated she never asked him to take the cameras down before calling the police.
Judge Judy later questioned this statement.
She asked if he knew the plaintiff wanted the camera down.
Mr. Paytas then admitted, "Yes, I did."
Judge Judy Reviews Camera Views
Mr. Paytas presented photographs to the court.
These pictures showed what his cameras recorded.
He identified two photos showing parts of the plaintiff's property.
One of these photos was enlarged.
He also submitted a photo of the view from his kitchen window.
Judge Judy examined the photographs.
She noted that one camera showed the public street and a small piece of the plaintiff's front lawn.
She found this front-facing camera unobjectionable.
However, she found the camera viewing the plaintiff's backyard and pool to be an invasion of privacy.
Defendant's Justification for Camera Placement
Mr. Paytas explained that if he pushed the camera all the way towards his house, it would cause an "awful glare."
He claimed this glare would prevent the cameras from seeing anything.
Judge Judy dismissed this, stating, "That's too bad."
She reiterated that the plaintiff has a right to privacy in her backyard.
Privacy Expectation in Backyard
Judge Judy emphasized that the plaintiff does not want her backyard or pool photographed.
She stated this is a "perfectly reasonable request."
The plaintiff does not want photographs of her children, family, or friends within Mr. Paytas's control.
Judge Judy explained that Mr. Paytas could adjust or move the camera.
This adjustment would allow it to only take in his yard.
This would still enable him to see if someone was coming into his house or skulking up his driveway.
Difference Between Visual and Recorded Surveillance
Judge Judy acknowledged that Mr. Paytas could see the plaintiff's backyard from his kitchen window.