On January 1, 2015, the Honorable Judge, Mr. Shmuel Bar Yosef of the Family Law Court in Tel Aviv, made a judgment in Case #11310-10-14. The case pertains to the issue of whether a married person can install security cameras in their house, without the permission of the other.
If the answer is “In general, no,” are there any exceptions in which such behavior is acceptable?
In general, it was ruled that one spouse may not install cameras inside the house without the other’s explicit permission, although there may be some unique extenuating circumstances.
In this particular case, the defendant/accused offender is a licensed lawyer who installed cameras in 2012 without his wife’s permission. Despite the fact that she broke the equipment on several occasions, he nonetheless kept on reinstalling the cameras. The fact that she had previously broken the cameras was considered evidence that she knew of their existence.
In September 2014, the wife called the police, saying the husband was violent and threatening her. The husband was arrested, and a restraining order was placed on him to keep him away from his wife. Fortunately for him, however, the video recordings from the installed cameras showed no evidence that he had been violent or had threatened his wife, and he was promptly released.
The judge discerned that the source of their ongoing turmoil was financial — and not violence — and she was fined NIS 10,000 for filing false accusations.
One month later, the wife sued her husband for violation of privacy. The husband admitted to installing the cameras, but said they were not in the most private areas of the house, such as the shower, the bathroom, or the bedroom.
The judge ruled that the husband had had no right to install the cameras without his wife’s explicit permission – even though she knew about them.
Yet, the judge went on to rule that, in this specific case — as a result of having installed the cameras — he was able to prove his innocence. Had he not installed the cameras, he could have gone to jail and lost his license to practice law.
The judge went on to say he was disturbed by the wife’s attempts to make money off her husband, based on false accusations. And the judge accepted the husband’s claim that the cameras were installed as self-defense against any future false accusations.
In the final ruling, the judge emphasized that using a camera to spy on one’s spouse is illegal and that everyone has the right to privacy in their own house — even from their own spouse. BUT, in this specific case alone, it was an act of self-defense and not a breach of her privacy.
The case was dismissed in the husband’s favor, and the wife was fined an additional NIS 15,000 to cover her husband’s legal fees.
A word of wisdom
Many couples, similar to the couple in this lawsuit, live under the same roof, not in peace but rather under pressure.
Most disputes are concerned with financial matters alone. In this case, it was not only about the money, but also about the husband’s reputation (and unnecessary overdose of emotions).
In spite of everything, it would have been best for the husband to make compromises and end the relationship from the very beginning (when he finally understood it was over), without the need for years of fighting, video cameras, and police intervention.
Better to separate a day earlier than a minute too late.
