3.322 — OBSTRUCTION OF SURVEILLANCE

Violations of "Statute 3.322" results in a Class C Felony

---

(a) Definitions

Obstruction of Surveillance refers to the act of tampering with, disabling, destroying, or interfering with security cameras, monitoring equipment, or any form of surveillance system used by law enforcement, private property owners, or public institutions to monitor, record, or gather information in public or private spaces. This offense also includes obstructing the legitimate use of surveillance tools designed to protect property, public safety, and the investigation of criminal activities.

(b) Elements

To establish the offense of obstruction of surveillance, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:

1. The defendant knowingly interfered with or obstructed a surveillance system, whether by damaging, tampering with, disabling, or otherwise obstructing its operation, either physically or electronically.

2. The defendant's actions were intentional and not accidental, meaning that the defendant acted purposefully to prevent the surveillance equipment from functioning as intended.

3. The surveillance system was lawful, meaning it was properly installed for lawful purposes such as crime prevention, security, or public safety, and was authorized for use in the location it was situated (e.g., a business, a public space, or a private property).

4. The defendant knew or should have known that their actions would interfere with surveillance and hinder its ability to monitor or record information relevant to public safety, criminal investigations, or private security.

5. The defendant’s actions caused a disruption to the surveillance system's ability to record, monitor, or provide evidence, leading to a potential impact on criminal

(c) Defenses

Defenses against a charge of obstruction of surveillance may include:

1. Lack of Knowledge: The defendant may argue that they were unaware that the object or device they interacted with was part of a surveillance system or that it was being used for monitoring purposes.

2. No Intent to Obstruct: The defendant may claim that any interference with the surveillance system was accidental or unintentional, and not done with the purpose of obstructing its use.

3. Permission to Modify/Disrupt: The defendant may claim that they had permission from the property owner, law enforcement, or other relevant authority to tamper with, disable, or adjust the surveillance system for maintenance or other lawful purposes.

4. Emergency Situation: The defendant may argue that their actions were necessary due to an emergency situation (e.g., to protect themselves or others from harm), and that interfering with the surveillance system was a reasonable response to the circumstances.

(d) Aggravating Factors

The court may consider the following aggravating factors when determining the severity of the offense:

1. Intent to Commit a Crime: The defendant obstructed surveillance with the intent to commit a crime, such as theft, vandalism, assault, or other illegal activities, and used the disruption of surveillance as a means to conceal their actions.

2. Obstruction of Surveillance in High-Security Areas: The defendant obstructed surveillance systems in areas of high security, such as government buildings, law enforcement facilities, or places that store sensitive information, increasing the potential for harm or loss.

3. Repeat Offender: The defendant has a history of similar offenses or has previously been involved in attempts to interfere with or obstruct surveillance systems, indicating a pattern of illegal behavior.

4. Use of Advanced Technology: The defendant used advanced techniques, tools, or technology to disable or obscure surveillance systems, indicating premeditation or a more serious level of obstruction.

5. Impact on Ongoing Investigation: The obstruction resulted in significant interference with an ongoing investigation, potentially allowing a criminal to evade capture, or leading to the destruction or loss of crucial evidence.