Also known as: invasion of privacy · invasions of privacy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tort arising when a defendant publishes material that places the plaintiff in a false light highly offensive to a reasonable person and does so with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Paige Porter, a private citizen, discovered that a local television station had aired footage of her at a protest rally spliced with narration falsely implying she advocated violence. The station had received a tip that the narration was inaccurate yet aired the segment anyway. Paige sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim to proceed because the station acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Paul Peterson and his family were held hostage for a day. A national magazine later published an article describing a fictional play as a reenactment of their ordeal and illustrated it with photographs taken inside their former home. The family sued the publisher for privacy invasion under a state statute. The court required proof that the publisher acted with knowledge or reckless disregard that the portrayal was false.
In September 1952, James Hill, his wife, and their five children were held hostage for 19 hours in their home in Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, by three escaped convicts. The convicts treated the family courteously and released them unharmed. Shortly after the incident, the family moved to Connecticut, and Hill discouraged further publicity. In 1953, Joseph Hayes published the novel The Desperate Hours, which was inspired by the Hill incident but depicted a family suffering violence at the hands of the convicts. The novel was adapted into a Broadway play that opened in 1955. Life magazine published an article in its February 28, 1955, issue titled "True Crime Inspires Tense Play," which described the play as a reenactment of the Hill family's experience and included photographs of actors posing in the former Hill home. The Life article was prepared by entertainment editor Prideaux, who relied on information from Hayes and a photographer but did not verify the extent of fictionalization. James Hill sued Time, Inc., the publisher of Life, in New York state court under sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law. He alleged that the article falsely portrayed the play as a reenactment of his family's experience. At the first trial, a jury awarded Hill $30,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the liability finding but ordered a new trial on damages, and the New York Court of Appeals later sustained the compensatory award while reversing the punitive damages. After a second trial limited to compensatory damages, the jury again awarded $30,000. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutional issues raised by the application of the state statute.
View casePedro Pacheco used a public telephone booth to place calls. A broadcaster later aired a report falsely portraying Pacheco as a criminal based on inaccurate surveillance details. Pacheco sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the broadcaster acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California. He faced an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations. FBI agents had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions thus presented. Based upon previous visual observations of the petitioner, the agents correctly predicted he would use the booth for several minutes at approximately the same time each morning. The petitioner was subjected to electronic surveillance only during this predetermined period. Six recordings, averaging some three minutes each, were obtained and admitted in evidence. They preserved the petitioner's end of conversations concerning placing bets and receiving wagering information. On the single occasion when the statements of another person were inadvertently intercepted, the agents refrained from listening to them. The telephone booth was made partly of glass. The petitioner was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. The agents confined their surveillance to the brief periods during which he used the booth and took great care to overhear only the petitioner's conversations.
View casePriscilla Parks, a private attorney, was the subject of a magazine article that falsely accused her of participating in a criminal conspiracy. The article was published with serious doubts about its accuracy. Parks sued the publisher for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and denied summary judgment because a jury could find reckless disregard.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
View casePeter Park, a union negotiator, participated in a cellular telephone conversation that was illegally intercepted by a third party. A radio station later broadcast the recording on air with false narration implying criminal conduct. Park sued the station for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the station acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the fall of 1992 and spring of 1993 the Pennsylvania State Education Association engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District board. Petitioner Anthony Kane was president of the local union. Petitioner Gloria Bartnicki served as the union's chief negotiator and a teacher in the district. On the evening of May 15, 1993, Bartnicki used a cellular telephone in her car to call Kane. During the conversation they discussed the status of the negotiations, the possibility of a strike, and the board's offer of a three-percent raise. Kane suggested that if the board did not increase its offer the union should reject it and go on strike. He made statements about blowing off front porches and doing work on some of the board members. Bartnicki responded that they would have to do some nasty things. An unidentified person intercepted and recorded the cellular telephone conversation using an electronic device. The unknown interceptor gave the tape to respondent Jack Yocum, president of a local taxpayers' organization that had been critical of the union's demands. Yocum in turn gave the tape to respondent Frederick W. Vopper, a radio talk show host operating in the area. On May 31, 1993, Vopper played the tape of the intercepted conversation on his public affairs talk show. He played the tape again on August 23, 1993, during a news broadcast on a local television station. The same day the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader published a transcript of a portion of the tape. Bartnicki and Kane filed suit against Vopper, Yocum, and other media defendants seeking damages under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After discovery the District Court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment as to liability. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePriya Prasad returned home to find federal narcotics agents had entered and searched her apartment without a warrant, seizing personal papers. A broadcaster later aired a report falsely portraying Prasad as a drug dealer. Prasad sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the broadcaster acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseA plaintiff must prove that the defendant published the material with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, the same actual malice standard that governs defamation claims against media defendants.
Yes, when the broadcaster did not participate in the illegal interception and the information concerns a matter of public interest, the First Amendment shields the publication from liability for privacy invasion.
Yes, an implied cause of action exists for Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers, allowing the victim to seek damages even without a statutory remedy.
…the exercise of federal power, must be rejected. Second. The interests protected by state laws regulating trespass and the invasion of privacy, and those protected by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be inconsistent or even hostile. Thus, we may bar the door against an unwelcome…