Nuckles v. State, 310 Ga. 624

Wanda Nuckles, an employee at a rehabilitation facility, was indicted for depriving an elderly patient (James Dempsey) of essential services and concealing his death after Dempsey died in February 2014.
Dempsey, an 89-year-old resident, reported missing personal items and complained about staff care; his son Timothy installed a hidden video camera (disguised as an alarm clock) in Dempsey’s side of the shared room on Feb. 7–8, 2014.
The camera recorded continuously (about 400 hours total) and captured the area where Dempsey kept personal belongings; Timothy viewed footage after Dempsey’s unexpected death and provided it to law enforcement.
Nuckles moved to suppress the recording under OCGA § 16-11-62(2) (prohibiting recording in a “private place” without consent of all persons observed) and § 16-11-67 (excluding unlawfully obtained evidence), arguing she did not consent to being recorded.
The State invoked OCGA § 16-11-62(2)(B) (the “Security Exception”): recordings by an owner or occupier of real property for security/crime-prevention in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy are lawful.
The trial court denied suppression (alternative holdings: no private-place standing for Nuckles; or recording fell under the Security Exception). The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed, holding the recording fell within the Security Exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nuckles)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the hidden camera recording falls within OCGA § 16-11-62(2)(B) Security Exception	Exception doesn’t apply because recording occurred in a patient’s room (reasonable expectation of privacy) and the patient wasn’t an “owner or occupier of real property” with authority to invoke the exception	Recording was for security/crime-prevention and fits the exception	Held: Recording falls within the Security Exception
Whether Dempsey qualifies as an “owner or occupier of real property” under the exception	‘‘Occupier’’ should mean only someone with ultimate control/responsibility for property; Dempsey lacked such control	‘‘Occupier’’ has its ordinary meaning (one who occupies/resides/has lawful possessory rights); a long-term resident storing personal items is an occupier	Held: Dempsey was an occupier of real property for purposes of the exception
Whether Nuckles had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area recorded	A patient-room recording should be evaluated by place and thus is a private area; employees may claim privacy in workplace areas	Expectation of privacy is individualized; Nuckles did not have exclusive control or personal use of the room and was working—no reasonable expectation of privacy	Held: Nuckles had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the area captured; State met burden to show admissibility

Kennebrew v. State, 304 Ga. 406 (2018) (review of factual-viewing standard on motions)
Crowder v. State of Ga., 309 Ga. 66 (2020) (statutory meaning — look to text)
Carpenter v. McMann, 304 Ga. 209 (2018) (statutory interpretation principles)
Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (2013) (text and context in statutory reading)
State v. Cohen, 302 Ga. 616 (2017) (using Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as interpretive guide for privacy terms)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishing the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places)
O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) (workplace expectation-of-privacy analysis; case-by-case)
Tidwell v. State, 285 Ga. 103 (2009) (employee privacy in workplace contexts)
Philpot v. State, 300 Ga. 154 (2016) (State’s burden to establish admissibility of challenged evidence)
Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 17 (2008) (distinguishing privacy expectations of renters versus casual visitors)
Bowling v. State, 289 Ga. 881 (2011) (context and presence of others can negate expectation of privacy)
Friedenberg v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County, 911 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2018) (expectations of privacy differ by context; workplace safety can reduce privacy expectations)