In subsequent cases, judgments proceeded from the second opinion, but Decision of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dated on April 15, 2008 (case number 2007 (A) No. 839) stated 'it does not go so far as to mean, as argued by the accused, that photographing of a person's appearance, etc. by police officials should not be permitted except in cases where it is found that the crime is currently being committed or has just been committed' and 'videotaping operations such as videotaping the defendant's appearance, etc. on the public road and in the pachinko parlor can be recognized as legal Investigation activities', which means that the second opinion has been dominant, at least in precedents.
その後の裁判例においては、第二の見解に立つものが続いたが、最高裁平成20年4月15日第二小法廷決定（事件番号平成19(あ)839）は、本判決について、「警察官による人の容ぼう等の撮影が、現に犯罪が行われ又は行われた後間がないと認められる場合のほかは許されないという趣旨まで判示したものではない」と述べた上で、公道上及びパチンコ店内において被告人の容ぼう等をビデオ撮影した捜査活動を適法と判断しており、少なくとも裁判例においては、第二の見解が支配的になったといえる。