Surveillance Video Your Defense

Surveillance Video Your Defense: What Changed in 2025

They Got You On Video—That Doesn’t Mean You’re Finished

They showed you the video in discovery. You saw yourself on that screen – and your attorney mentioned “challenging the evidence” but didn’t explain how, which makes everything worse because you know what you’re seeing, you know what the prosecutor’s gonna say. Spodek Law Group is a second-generation criminal defense law firm – Todd Spodek, who was the lawyer for Anna Delvey (the Netflix series), has been interviewed by NY Post, Newsweek, Fox 5, and we have many, many, years of combined experience defending video evidence cases other firms said were unwinnable. Your freedom is on the line, you was thinking video meant automatic conviction – many, many, defendants think that – but what prosecutors don’t want you knowing: video evidence has weaknesses, technical problems, custody gaps we find and use, exploit really. What changed in April 2025 makes this critical because authentication rules changed, shifted really, and most attorneys don’t know it yet which means if your lawyer’s telling you “they can’t get the video in without the camera operator” that was true in 2023 it’s FALSE in 2025. You have 72 hours from discovery to preserve your best challenges not when you feel ready RIGHT NOW and we’re available 24/7.

What Changed April 2025

United States v. Sandoval-Rodriguez (4th Circuit, April 2025) – that’s the case your attorney might not have read yet, which [lowered the authentication bar](https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/). Prosecutors used to need someone who could testify the video “fairly and accurately represents what happened” – that was Pictorial Testimony theory. Sandoval changed everything – the court ruled [circumstantial evidence ALONE can authenticate video](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901) under FRE 901(b)(4) which means prosecutors don’t need the camera guy, just date/time stamps, distinctive characteristics matching other evidence, and contextual corroboration.

Unlike other law firms still telling clients “they can’t authenticate without a witness” we know your defense strategy can’t be “they can’t get it in” – it has to be [attack the Fourth Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (was recording legal?), attack AI alteration potential, attack reliability not authentication. Different game now.

Can They Even Use It? The Suppression Matrix

The first question isn’t “can they authenticate it” (post-Sandoval, yes) – it’s “was the recording LEGAL?” Based off dozens of federal suppression motions from recent years, patterns emerge and we see the same issues over and over, irrespective what prosecutors claim about precedent or how strong they think their case is, due to they haven’t figured out these authentication weaknesses yet, haven’t adapted to the Sandoval ruling like we have, and different than other firms who accept “video equals conviction” we attack every single vulnerability, every single custody gap, every timestamp discrepancy that exists in cloud storage transfers.

Public Space – video gets in. Always. No suppression possible here.

Semi-Public (lobby, hallway) – harder suppression fight and depends on whether your a resident with privacy expectation or just visiting, whether you had knowledge cameras were there, whether signage existed, because prosecutors will try and argue you had no reasonable expectation but we’ve won these motions before, many times actually.

Curtilage (yard, driveway) – strongest suppression argument in our experience and this is where things get absurd because if camera was on neighbor’s property pointing into YOUR curtilage that’s where you fight, irrespective of what prosecutors claim about [plain view doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrine), irrespective the amount of case law they cite. Best odds here. We file these motions aggressively.

Private (inside home/business) – highest suppression success rate we’ve seen in our practice, and as a premier, and award winning criminal defense firm in Manhattan, we take Fourth Amendment violations seriously, more seriously than other firms who are more focused on their relationship with prosecutors and judges than protecting your constitutional rights. No consent and no warrant means excluded. Period.

What you need RIGHT NOW: WHERE was the camera, WHERE were you, WHO owned it, WHO gave it to police – those four answers determine your suppression strategy and we need them immediately, not next week, not when you feel comfortable sharing, because every day that passes prosecutors are building their case, solidifying their theory, and creating documentation that covers custody gaps you could have exploited. Got a neighbor’s Ring filming your driveway? That’s curtilage territory. File the motion. Today.

The Cloud Storage Custody Trap

Ring camera in Seattle records you 3:47 PM Tuesday, uploads to Amazon’s cloud in Virginia, FBI in Manhattan subpoenas Amazon Friday, another agent downloads Monday, emails prosecutor Tuesday. That’s FIVE transfers across THREE jurisdictions. Who certified Amazon preserved the original when homeowner claims they deleted it. What happened between preservation and download. Which agent subpoenaed versus downloaded. Was there [hash verification for digital evidence](https://www.nist.gov/itl/ssd/software-quality-group/national-software-reference-library-nsrl/nsrl-frequently-asked).

The amount of custody transfers are extensive and everyone who touched that file should have documentation but they don’t always have it and one missing form destroys their case – we’ve defended Anna Delvey, Ghislaine Maxwell, cases where the alleged victims of the crime had less evidence than what prosecutors are trying and use against you right now with this video.

We’ve seen cases where multi-week gaps between cloud preservation and law enforcement download raised serious chain of custody questions – when prosecution can’t explain what happened to the file during those gaps, that’s your suppression argument. Demand: Amazon’s preservation log and FBI’s download certification – one missing link, you got your motion. That’s how these cases get won. Unlike other lawyers who accept “chain of custody” as prosecutor says it we make them prove every transfer, every single person who touched that file, regardless how tedious it seems.

Defenses Prosecutors Aren’t Ready For

Every digital video gets algorithmically processed – Ring cameras auto-compress, auto-enhance, auto-stabilize – that’s algorithmic alteration. Police body cameras use AI noise reduction (vendors admit this). Federal Rule 901 was written in 1975 when none of this existed. Before smartphones. Before cloud storage. Before AI.

Your defense: “In 2025, authentication must include proving the video wasn’t AI-altered beyond automatic processing.” We file pre-trial motions on this – even if denied you’ve planted reasonable doubt because juries know [deepfakes are real](https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/deepfake).

Timestamps – video shows 6:47 PM but you got an alibi for 6:47 PM, prosecutors say you’re lying. What they don’t tell you: timestamps come from device clock not synchronized time server. Device clock can be wrong by hours, can be CHANGED retroactively. We’ve defended cases where [camera clock discrepancies](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-reliable-is-video-evidence/) ranged from minutes to hours – when your alibi is “close” to the video timestamp, that’s not proof you’re wrong, that’s proof you need a forensic expert checking that camera’s clock settings. Got an alibi 15 minutes off? Demand camera clock audit log.

Video Quality = Your Negotiating Power

Video quality – how clear is it really, can they actually see your face or are they guessing – this directly effects your plea position, your negotiating power. Based off hundreds of federal cases from recent years:

Clear face + action visible = strong prosecution position, minimal plea reduction

Body visible but NOT clear face + corroboration = moderate prosecution strength, some plea leverage

Figure at distance, no corroboration = weak prosecution case, significant plea leverage

Video requires FBI enhancement for identification = very weak prosecution position, massive plea leverage

If FBI had to enhance the video your negotiating position is MASSIVE. Juries see “enhanced” footage they get skeptical – “you had to enhance it just to see their face?”

Before you accept ANY plea: can you clearly identify yourself in unenhanced original or did FBI enhance it? Critical question. That difference is enormous, the difference between minimal and massive plea leverage. Demand the enhancement report – you need to see it, need to know what they did to that video to make it “clear enough” for identification. If they enhanced it that’s your power. Use it.

Force Them to Choose Authentication Theory

Most attorneys don’t make prosecutors choose their authentication theory, don’t force them to commit. Two theories exist under FRE 901: Pictorial Testimony (requires witness with first-hand knowledge) versus [Silent Witness theory](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2019/fall/authentication-digital-video-evidence/) (video authenticates itself, no eyewitness needed). Prosecutors always try Silent Witness because it’s easier. Way easier.

Your defense: force them to use Pictorial Testimony. Make them choose. File pre-trial motion arguing prosecution must specify which theory and meet that burden. If judge requires Pictorial Testimony prosecution often can’t meet it because nobody was physically present, irrespective how much video evidence they have.

The 72-Hour Window You’re Losing

In our experience, challenges filed immediately – within days of learning about the video – succeed far more often than challenges filed weeks or months later. Why? In those first critical days the original source still has the file, chain of custody is being established not documented yet, FBI hasn’t created cover-documentation, prosecutor hasn’t locked strategy. Everything’s fluid. After weeks pass the original’s “lost,” chain is documented, prosecution’s prepared, too late. Window closed.

If you got discovery Monday your attorney should file authentication challenge and preservation demand by Thursday – not wait 45 days. Not next month. Now. Critical steps: preservation demand and chain of custody interrogatory forcing them to identify every person who touched that file, regardless what your attorney says about “having time.”

This evidence has eight vulnerabilities – the April 2025 Sandoval authentication shift, cloud storage custody gaps, AI alteration and timestamp defenses, video quality determining plea position, forcing Pictorial Testimony authentication, the suppression matrix, and the 72-hour challenge window. While other law firms tell clients “video equals conviction” we show you the tactical openings. We’ve defended hundreds of video evidence cases. Hundreds. Unlike other criminal defense attorneys who let prosecutors get video into evidence, authenticate it without challenge, without making them prove every custody link every authentication element every Fourth Amendment basis – we force them to prove every single one.

Your 72-hour window’s closing – if you just saw the footage call us 24/7 RIGHT NOW we can review it, identify custody gaps, file preservation demands, and start forensic analysis before your challenges disappear. Call 212-300-5196.