1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21

40, I take it it would have nothinq to do with a search
warrant. Is that correct?
DELEGATE BOTHE: As applied to a case in which
a warrant -- of course, where there is no warran-t and where
there is an unreasonable search or seizure, there would be
no admissibility.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, to be specific, because I
don't understand the application of your amendment, in view
of what you just said, in a private matter, a civil proceed-
ing, suppose one takes moving pictures of a person claiming
to be injured as a result of an automobile accident.
If it was deemed that those moving pictures were
an unreasonable invasion of privacy of a person, would it
mean that they would not be admissible in evidence?
DELEGATE BOTHE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the same thing would be true
if a witness, an eye witness, not moving picture, observed
conduct which might be evidence in a divorce case; if it
were deemed an unreasonable invasion of privacy it would
not be admissible?
DLLATE BOTHE: With the proviso that the