Admissibility of satellite photos obtained from google earth
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 09 August 2013
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts,
Usually, we come across several civil cases where one changes the physical features of property i.e. by making constructions over neighbour's property or over a canal and file a Declaration and/or Injunction suit against the true owner pleading that he had been in possession of property for more than 12 years or so.
In order to prove the physical features existing on the disputed property during particular period, the photographs taken from Google Earth will be so useful.
My queries are :-
Whether Satellite photographs obtained from Google Earth are admissible in evidence or not?
Is there any ruling in that regard?
Pls clarify. Thanks in advance.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 09 August 2013
They are admissible as evidence. They are documents as per S. 3 of Evidence Act. The pics carry dates also.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 August 2013
Agree with Dr. Rao.They would be admissible.
Facts come first rulings come there after.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 August 2013
I have not seen or heard any case decided on the basis of google earth photographs so no concrete opinion can be ofered from my side.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 August 2013
Photographs are required to be proved and if those are take through gogle earth, the modality of proof is required to eb evolved in that situation.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 09 August 2013
After the amendments to IE Act through IT Act, electronic docs are also admitted as evidence. Google as a source commands respect the world over but even that has to be proved by producing the e records, like any other paper-based doc.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 10 August 2013
On September 27, 2010, in State ex. Rel. J.B., the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey allowed the State to use two satellite photographic images obtained from Google Earth as illustrative aids.
The case involved the lower court’s determination that a minor was a delinquent. Attempting to discredit the juvenile’s alibi that he was home at the time of an alleged burglary, the State offered into evidence the juvenile’s cell phone records and the testimony of a Verizon representative, who explained that cell phone calls are transmitted through the tower nearest the caller. The prosecution then offered photographs obtained from Google Earth to aid in showing that calls made from the juvenile’s cell phone during the burglary were transmitted through the cell phone tower that was closest to the burglary site (and not the tower closest to the juvenile’s home). Both towers, as well as the site of the burglary and the juvenile’s home, were pinpointed via Google Earth. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a “‘foundation in terms of how accurate [Google Earth] is.’”
The prosecution then offered the testimony of a police detective who had charted the course between the relevant points using the odometer in his patrol car as well as an atlas map on which the relevant points were marked by approximation. On this foundation, the prosecution again offered the satellite photographs from Google Earth. This time, the trial judge overruled defense counsel’s objection:
The [c]ourt finds that other than very recently what would have happened is . . . that the State would have brought in an atlas map and ask[ed] somebody familiar with the area to point on the map where different locations are and how you would get there. And this is just an updated manner of getting the same information. If the [d]efense wants to show that the information is incorrect, they can certainly do it by either cross examination or they can do exactly what I just suggested and bring in an atlas map and show where the exhibit that the State is offering is incorrect.
The Appellate Division found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in so ruling but was careful to note that the trial judge had expressed “skepticism” regarding the reliability of the Google Earth images and actually relied on the atlas map instead. Further, the Appellate Division reasoned that, because the images were offered as illustrative aids to illuminate the detective’s testimony (and not as substantive evidence), “their exclusion would not have altered the trial in any material or meaningful way.” And ultimately, it was noted that whether the Google Earth images were properly authenticated was “inconsequential” since defense counsel conceded in his summation that the State had proven that the juvenile’s cell phone was at the scene of the crime. The only disputed fact was whether the juvenile was at the scene
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 August 2013
In continuation of good effort of Dr.Rao,the following page on net is an interesting discussion on topic being probed by us for evidentiary use of google earth:
http://goarticles.com/article/Should-Google-Earth-images-be-admissible-as-evidence-in-court/5464109/
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 August 2013
A valid question put by author Colleen Ludgate (of aforesaid article) is:
"does the fact that most images on Google Earth are outdated (I found my own house with the car I got rid of a few years ago parked in front) give the general population the permission to creep on another person’s private life?"
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 10 August 2013
The question raised by Colleen relates not to admissibility of evidence but to reliability of evidence. That question applies to all and any evidence, not just to Google pics.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 August 2013
Yes!Dr.Rao you are right.
I got impressed on question of 'privacy'raised.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 10 August 2013
Though it can be said that what is visible from outside for everybody does not invade privacy, even that can in deed have legal limits for publication. I agree.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 August 2013
Yes!Dr.Rao!
That is the concerned.It is every body knowledge that every body is naked in his bathroom and probably a spy camera can snap
it without one's knowledge or consent.
The question of admissibility would arise only when so taken snap is sought to be used as evidence in court of law to prove question whether one was naked or not?
So unless Such evidences are to nab a criminal and touches to privacy which is not a right expressly guaranteed in our democratic geeta,though by virtue of article 20 & 21,an interpretation to that effect can be put into service,besides reliability,a question of admissibility can also arise if it touches the issue of privacy is my submission sir!
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 10 August 2013
Respected Dr. Nageswara Rao, Mr. Prabhakar Singh & Mr. Makkad,
Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs.
I am so eager to know the opinion/advice of other experts.
I invite the attention of other experts to resolve my issue.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 10 August 2013
yes, they are admissible in evidence.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 10 August 2013
take out their prints and file in court and
exhibit them during evidence.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 10 August 2013
Mr Singh, it is not even question of spy cameras peeping into bathrooms. If a girl is sunbathing on the terrace of her house with only G-strings on and Google takes pic of the building and publishes it, it will be a violation of her privacy. Suppose, a party wants to adduce it as evidence to show that there was a building in that particular place, the girl, not being a party to the case, may not even know that her pic will be used in that case. So no objection for its admission will be forthcoming from anybody!!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 August 2013
It may go endless as not every situation can be foreseen and author is desirous of other opinions then our dialogue in this respect gets stopped now.
