CE Certification, DPIA, evidentiary validity, risks and liabilities in the use of trail cameras by public authorities
Abstract: The use of trail cameras by local police forces and public administrations to combat illegal waste dumping has been steadily increasing. However, the spread of these tools is not always matched by adequate attention to the technical and legal requirements necessary for their lawful use. In particular, the presence of CE marking on the entire trail camera system – and not merely on the imaging device – constitutes an essential condition of legality, together with compliance with European rules on the protection of personal data. In many cases, handcrafted or small-batch assembled trail cameras are used without a complete conformity assessment procedure, exposing both the public administration and the police authority to the obligation to seize and sanction the manufacturer, as well as to potential liability for their own use of such devices.
Keywords: #trailcameras #wastecontrol #illegalwastedumping #videosurveillance #localpolice #publicadministrations #CEmarking #CEcertification #regulatorycompliance #privacy #GDPR #dataprotection #evidentiaryvalidity #administrativesanctions #legality #publictechnology #MassimilianoMancini #ethicasocietas #ethicasocietasjournal #scientificjournal #humansciences #socialsciences #ethicasocietasupli #unionepolizialocaleitaliana
OTHER ARTICLES ON TRAIL CAMERAS
CAMERA TRAPS THAT RECORD DATA LOCALLY, EVEN WHEN ENCRYPTED, ARE UNLAWFUL
Introduction
In recent years, the use of trail cameras by local police forces and public administrations has become increasingly widespread, particularly to combat illegal dumping and uncontrolled waste disposal, also in light of the new environmental regulations that encourage their use.
In any event, national rules may not derogate, for any purpose and under any circumstances, from European rules on data protection. Even when trail cameras are used for crime prevention and detection purposes (Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 51/2018), it is always mandatory to carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) prior to their deployment. Moreover, the DPIA must be updated at least annually, as it cannot be considered permanently valid.
The growing use of trail cameras has not always been accompanied by adequate scrutiny of the technical and legal legitimacy of the devices employed. In particular, insufficient attention is often paid to whether such systems effectively eliminate the risk of data breaches, for example by avoiding local data storage, even if encrypted, and instead transmitting images to servers compliant with AGID regulations. Above all, there is often a lack of verification as to whether these devices are duly approved and therefore equipped with CE certification, which is required for all equipment marketed and used within the European Union.
This issue becomes especially significant in cases where handcrafted or small-batch assembled trail cameras are used, as they are frequently lacking the regulatory requirements necessary to be lawfully employed by public authorities.
The meaning of CE approval and CE marking
CE Marking Is Not a Mere Formality
CE marking is neither a mere formal requirement nor a simple graphic symbol that may be applied at the manufacturer’s discretion. It represents a declaration that the product complies with the applicable European directives concerning:
-
electrical safety;
-
electromagnetic compatibility;
-
protection of health;
-
operational reliability;
-
safety for users and third parties.
In general, all products marketed in countries belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA)—namely the 27 EU Member States and the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland)—are subject to this requirement, even if they are manufactured in third countries. In particular, the following are considered unlawful and must therefore be seized, with sanctions imposed on both suppliers and users:
-
low-voltage electrical equipment;
-
electrical and electronic equipment;
-
measuring instruments;
-
devices using radio waves.
This category includes all video surveillance systems, trail cameras, and audiovisual recording systems in general.
CE marking must refer to the entire product placed on the market or put into use, not to a single component thereof.
The Common Mistake: Certifying Only the Imaging Device
One of the most frequent errors found in administrative practice is the belief that CE certification of the imaging device alone (camera or video camera) is sufficient, overlooking the fact that a trail camera constitutes a complex system.
A trail camera is not composed solely of the camera, but also includes:
-
the housing (case or enclosure);
-
power supply and battery charging circuits;
-
control electronics;
-
any motion sensors;
-
data transmission modules;
-
internal wiring and components.
For CE conformity purposes, the object to be assessed is the system as a whole, not the individual element. Consequently, CE marking applied only to the imaging device is not sufficient to render the entire apparatus compliant.
Handcrafted Trail Cameras and Small-Scale Production
Particular critical issues arise in cases of handcrafted trail cameras produced by small manufacturers by assembling industrial cameras with generic industrial cases or enclosures—sometimes 3D-printed—and common batteries. In such cases, it is often found that:
-
a genuine conformity assessment procedure is lacking;
-
no CE declaration exists for the finished product;
-
the responsible manufacturer and the technical file cannot be identified;
-
the CE mark is absent or improperly applied to individual parts.
In the absence of complete and documented CE certification, such devices must be considered legally unlawful for institutional use.
The Duty of Verification of Local Police and Public Administrations
Local police forces and public administrations cannot rely uncritically on the supplier or manufacturer. They are subject to a specific duty of prior verification, which includes:
-
confirming the presence of CE marking on the entire trail camera system;
-
verifying the approval details and the declaration of conformity;
-
ensuring that the marking refers to the complete system;
-
verifying the availability of the technical documentation required by law.
Failure to carry out these checks may result in:
-
the illegitimacy of enforcement activities;
-
the inadmissibility of evidentiary material;
-
administrative and accounting liability;
-
potential criminal liability in cases involving violations of fundamental rights.
Consequences for Sanctioning and Evidentiary Activities
The use of trail cameras lacking proper CE certification exposes the measures adopted to judicial challenge, with the risk of:
-
annulment of sanctions;
-
exclusion of images as evidence;
-
violation of the principles of legality, proportionality, and technical reliability.
In particular, when enforcement is based on technically non-compliant instruments, the reliability of the data collected is undermined—an essential prerequisite for any administrative or criminal proceeding.
Conclusions
CE certification of trail cameras is not a secondary detail, but an essential requirement of legality. Certification of the imaging device alone is insufficient: the entire structure—including the housing, charging circuits, electronics, and all other components—must comply with CE standards and be accompanied by the relevant certification documentation.
Public administrations and local police forces are therefore called upon to play an active and responsible role in verification. Failure to do so may invalidate the activities carried out and expose them to significant liability. In a state governed by the rule of law, the technology used for monitoring and enforcing compliance must itself be lawful, transparent, and verifiable.
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
ARSON ATTACK ON THE SAVIANO POLICE
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT CANNOT LAST INDEFINITELY AND MUST ALWAYS HAVE A DEFINED EXPIRY DATE
THE MEMORY OF THE FIRST INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST
CAMERA TRAPS THAT RECORD DATA LOCALLY, EVEN WHEN ENCRYPTED, ARE UNLAWFUL
A HISTORIC TURNING POINT: LAW 181/2025 RECOGNIZES THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF FEMICIDE
LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS ON PRIVACY
CAMERA TRAPS THAT RECORD DATA LOCALLY, EVEN WHEN ENCRYPTED, ARE UNLAWFUL
THE FRIA OBLIGATION FOR LOCAL POLICE
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS
CRIMES AND SUICIDES WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT: AN INTERVIEW WITH VENICE POLICE CHIEF
ARSON ATTACK ON THE SAVIANO POLICE
ANOTHER INEXPLICABLE SUICIDE IN UNIFORM: A YOUNG AND SUCCESSFUL WOMAN
IRAN, THE TIDE OF PROTEST CHALLENGING CLERICALISM
THE COALITION OF THE WILLING AND A GUARDED PEACE: THE WEST BETWEEN DETERRENCE AND DISENGAGEMENT
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non.profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0