PRIVACY LAW OUTLINE
4Th Amendment Search The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and eects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or armation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES - Police inserted a wire between the phone line (wiretap) - The court found it was not a search because there was np trespass into the home - The wires led out of the house thus were not a part of the house or the oce - Trespass doctrine - D!!ent" Justice Brandeis - Examined the relationship between the wiretap and sending a letter in the mail - “eil incident to inasion of the priac! of the telephone is far greater than that inoled in tampering with the mails" - #nli$e mail% the conersation inoles all parties Note Cases Bugs and Eavesdropping Goldman v. U.S.: Police placed a dictaphone next to a wall ad&acent to an oce' There was no search because there was no trespass Silverman v. U.S.: Police placed a “spi$e mi$e" into a duct that acted li$e a megaphone' The was a search because the microphone ph!sicall! trespassed' Misplaced Trust Hofa v. U.S.: isplaced his trust in an informant who testied against him' *id not rel! on the priac! of his hotel room because he inited the informant' Lewis v. U.S.: +old drugs to an undercoer agent' On Lee v. U.S.: ,nformant recorded the conersation electronicall!' o iolation'
LOPE# v. UNITED STATES - Electronic wire placed on an informant who spo$e to the defendant and recorded the conersation re&ects the argument because the tape recording is an accurate ersion of - .ourt the conersation% more so than the agent/s memor!
- C$nc%rrence" - Purpose between n !ee and this case is di0erent' 1ere% it/s about corroborating the testimon!'n !ee sought to aoid putting the agent on the stand - D!!ent" - 2i$e communicating one/s thought on paper% it is no di0erent than communicating one/s thought erball!
Page 1 of 23
&AT# v. UNITED STATES - Electronic recorder outside of a phone booth - 3lthough there was no ph!sical trespass% it was a search - .ourt found that the trespass doctrine was no longer controlling - The '$%rth amendment (r$tect! (e$()e and n$t ()ace! - C$nc%rrence" Justice 1arlan - TEST"
- Per!$n e*h+t! an act%a) ,!%+ectve e*(ectat$n $' (rvac/0 and - That e*(ectat$n ! $ne that !$cet/ ! (re(ared t$ rec$1n2e a! 3rea!$na+)e UNITED STATES v. W5ITE - .onersation oerheard b! goernment b! monitoring the fre4uenc! of a radio carried b! an informant - .ourt found no iolation of 5th 3mend' - “an electronic recording will man! times produce a more reliable rendition of what a defendant has said than will the unaided memor! of a police agent" SMIT5 v. MARYLAND - Police installed a pen register to monitor outgoing calls b! the *efendant - o actual expectation of priac! in the number people dial
- 3ll subscribers $now that the! must cone! this info to the telephone co' - 6eeps a record of their calls - 7ecords this information for a ariet! oflegitimate business reasons - +ociet! is not read! to recogni8e this expectation asreasonable - o priac! when a person voluntarily turns oer their information - "ee #.". Miller (holding that ban$ customers who cone! their nancial information to a ban$ hae no expectation of priac! because the emplo!ees iew this information) - D!!ent" - *isclosing information is limited for the legitimate business purpose and should not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purpose
CALI6ORNIA v. 7REENWOOD
-
9arrantless search of garbage bags left at the curb outside o expectation of priac! leaing trash outside especiall! in a public area o reasonable expectation either D!!ent" - 3rgue that a person/s personal human actiit! ultimatel! manifests itself in waste product - The possibilit! that someone will loo$ through our trash does not negate the expectation of priac!% the same wa! a burglar negates the expectation if priac! in our homes
Page 2 of 23
6LORIDA v. RILEY - Police :ew oer a greenhouse and spotted mari&uana plants growing through missing tiles in the roof and sides - ot a 5th 3mendment search because; - 1e had an expectation of priac! b! erecting a fence around the propert!< B#T - This expectation is not one societ! is read! to accept as reasonable - 9hat a person $nowingl! exposes to the public is not sub&ect to 5th 3mend' protection - Police need not obtain a warrant in order to obsere what is obserable with the na$ed e!e while traeling through public airwa!s
DOW C5EMICAL v. U.S. - Police :ew oer the *ow .hemical plant and used a high resolution map-ma$ing camera - ot a search - Een though the police ocer/s na$ed e!e ision was enhanced% it did not gie rise to a constitutional problem
&YLLO v. U.S. - ore than na$ed e!e sureillance b! using thermal imaging to inspect a home for heat signatures to nd mari&uana growing - a! expose intimate details li$e what time the lad! of the house draws a bath - +calia highlights the 5th 3mend'/s “rm line at the entrance to the house" 8ONES 6EDERAL 9 STATE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE LAWS E)ectr$nc C$mm%ncat$n! Prvac/ Act ,ECPA - Wre C$mm%ncat$n! - Ora) C$mm%ncat$n! - E)ectr$nc C$mm%ncat$n! Denitions 3:re c$mm%ncat$n means an! aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications b! theofaid of wire% cable% or other li$e connection between the point of srcin and the point reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station)
3a%ra) tran!'er means a transfer containing the human oice at an! point between and including the point of srcin and the point of reception< 3$ra) c$mm%ncat$n means an! oral communication uttered b! a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not sub&ect to interception
Page 3 of 23
under circumstances &ustif!ing such expectation% but such term does not include an! electronic communication<
3e)ectr$nc c$mm%ncat$n means an! transfer of signs% signals% writing% images% sounds% data% or intelligence of an! nature transmitted in whole or in part b! a wire% radio% electromagnetic% photoelectronic or photooptical s!stem that a0ects interstate or foreign commerce% but does not include-(3) an! wire or oral communication< Wiretap ct (=) Except as otherwise specicall! proided in this chapter an! person who-(a) intentionall! nterce(t!% endeaors to intercept% or procures an! other person to intercept or endeaor to intercept%an/ :re; $ra); $r e)ectr$nc c$mm%ncat$n< (b) intentionall! %!e!% endeaors to use% or procures an! other person to use or endeaor to use an! electronic% mechanical% or other deicet$ nterce(t an/ $ra) c$mm%ncat$n :hen-(i) such deice is axed to% or otherwise transmits a signal through% a wire% cable% or other li$e connection used in wire communication< or (ii) such deice transmits communications b! radio% or interferes with the transmission of such communication< or (iii) such person $nows% or has reason to $now% that such deice or an! component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce< or (i) such use or endeaor to use (3) ta$es place on the premises of an! business or other commercial establishment the operations of which a0ect interstate or foreign commerce< or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of an! business or other commercial establishment the operations of which a0ect interstate or foreign commerce< or () such person acts in the *istrict of .olumbia% the .ommonwealth of Puerto 7ico% or an! territor! or possession of the #nited +tates< (c) intentionall!d!c)$!e!% or endeaors to disclose% to an! other person the contents of an! wire% oral% or electronic communication% $nowing or haing reason to $now that the information was obtained through the interception of a:re; $ra); $r e)ectr$nc c$mm%ncat$n in iolation of this subsection< (d) intentionall! %!e!% or endeaors to use% thec$ntent! of an! wire% oral% or electronic communication% $nowing orhavn1 rea!$n t$
Co!rt Orders - #nder >ath - Judge must nd a Pr$+a+)e Ca%!e that the information will be obtained from the wiretap - 3lternaties must hae been made% and must hae failed "inimi#ation" aoid sweeping communications be!ond the purpose of the order Notice: recorded conersations must be turned oer to the court $%ceptions: - .onsent (b! one part!) unless for tortious or criminal acts - .ommunications serice proider can intercept while engaged inactvt/ that ! nece!!ar/ ncdent t$ the rendt$n t$ h! !ervce Stored Comm!nications ct &SC'
Page 4 of 23
Except as proided in subsection (c) of this section whoeer-(=) intentionall! acce!!e! without authori8ation a facilit! through which an electronic communication serice is proided< or (?) intentionall! e*ceed! an authori8ation to access that facilit!< and thereb! $+tan!; a)ter!; $r (revent! authori8ed access to a wire or electronic communication :h)e t ! n e)ectr$nc !t$ra1ein such s!stem shall be punished as proided in subsection (b) of this section' means-3e)ectr$nc (3) an!!t$ra1e % intermediate storage of a wire or electronic tem($rar/ communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof< and (B) an! !t$ra1e of such communication b! an electronic communication serice for purposes of +ac<%( protection of such communication<
(enalt): no exclusionar! rule @=%AAA ne *+, Da)s or Less: 9arrant probable cause *+* Da)s or "ore: =) Prior notice to subscriber and obtain a subpoena or a court order (“reasonable grounds")< or ?) warrant but no notice to subscriber State C$n!ent La:! - Two-part! or >ne-part! consent lawsC - *o both parties need to consent or is it sucient for one part!C
- A)) Part/ C$n!ent La:" CO""ONW$LTH v. HD$ - 7ecorded police without police/s consent in iolation of the state law - *issent; citi8ens hae a role to pla! when ocial/s conduct is at issue SEARC5IN7 COMPUTERS LACEY" upheld a generic warrant on the whole computer UP5AM" nding a needle in the computer/s hard drie “ha!stac$" is not an! more intrusie than searching whole house for a weaponDdrugs CAREY" irst warrant was for searching a computer for illegal drug eidence% but found .P< court found the police need a ?nd warrant CAMPOS" Police had a warrant to nd ? .P pics% but found F' ot feasible to search for onl! particular computer les (SSWO/D (/OT$CT$D 01L$S: TRULOC& V. 6REE5 - Two computer users with password protected accounts can/t gie consent on behalf of the other user to search their les U.S. v. ANDRUS - G= !ear old who lied with parents% had a password protected computer in his bedroom - Police searched the computer< father consented - ot apparent from the outside whether there was a passcodeDpassword
Page 5 of 23
- Te!t" :hether the $=cer>! +e)e' n the a%th$rt/>! a+)t/ t$ c$n!ent :a! rea!$na+)e - the t$ta)t/ $' crc%m!tance! - *issent; computers displa! outward signs of password protection li$e login screens RILEY v. CALI6ORNIA - Police searched a smart phone and a :ip phone after an arrest without a warrant phones hae so much data< focused on the ?%antt/ of information - +mart generated from a phone - “montage of a user/s life" - 3erage user has HH apps photo - +earch warrant re4uired% een if incident to arrest
2ideo S!rveillance $o Wiretap ct violation if there is no audio because it is not an oral comm!nication STEVE 8AC&SON 7AMES; INC. v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE - +ending message to users through Hrd part! forum or Bulletin Boards +!stem (BB+) - +end message to serer -I serer stores message temporaril! -I retrieed b! end user - I' the rec(ent ha! n$t retreved the me!!a1e; ! t anintercept3 - .ongress did not intent intercept to appl! to stored communication - +tored .ommunication 3ct applies% not 9iretap 3ct UNITED STATES v. WARS5A& - ot' sei8ed emails - .ourt used the &at2 ? sub&ectie K reasonable expectation of priac! test - +ub&ectie expectation; Les - +ociet! nds reasonable; Les - >riginall! mail receied high protection% no reason wh! email shouldnMt receie the same leel - KK li$e a phone call - ,+P had the abilit! to read the emails' 3 mere abilit! does not extinguish the reasonable ofrip priac! - 2i$ewise% expectation someone can open mail% but does not mean there is no expectation - 1oweer% if the ,+P expresses an intent to audit% inspect% or monitor emails% then there ma! not be an expectation of priac! - #nli$e Miller (where the ban$ receied deposit slips)% the ,+P was an intermediar! and not the intended recipient of the communication
UNITED STATES v. 5AM@RIC&
Page 6 of 23
- “a! dad 5 sex" chatroom soliciting an alleged =5 !ear old (under coer cop) to come lie with him
- +ubpoena to the ,+P reealed the ,P address subscriber info (name% address% credit card info etc')
- 9hen he surfed the internet% he %nowingly disclosed his P,, to the ,+P - ,+P emplo!ees had access to these records for billing and account maintenance & D!tn1%!h" not the contents of +tore .ommunications (email etc') "ee 'arsha% UNITED STATES v. 6ORRESTER - Pen 7egister for email and isited websites - .iting "mith% no expectation of priac! in numbers the! dial - o expectation of priac! of information oluntaril! cone!ed to Hrd parties - .onstitutionall! indistinguishable from "mith and telephone pen registers - ToDrom; email info is re4uired b! ,+Ps to route the messages - .an/t see content of emails or websites (&ust li$e no content of phone calls) NATIONAL SECURITY Domestic UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,&EIT5 CASE - 9hite Panthers bomb the .,3 building in ichigan conduced a wiretap without a warrant - o/t - 3rgued Nat$na) Sec%rt/ - “othing contained in this chapterNshall limit the constitutional power of the President to ta$e such measures as he deems necessar! to protectN" - .ongress dd n$t expand the President/s power% did not confer no additional power - .ongress left the President/s power where it found them - #nchec$ed sureillance and wiretaps preents political dissent - Een so% becomes problematic for priate dissent (crucial to a free societ!) - NOTE" .ourt onl! applied this to domestic aspects of national securit!
Crmna)" 3lwa!s need warrant D$me!tc Nat$na) Sec%rt/" 5th 3mend' re4uires a warrant% but the precise re4uirements are di0erent than criminal 6$re1n Inte))1ence 7athern1"(eith did not address 0orei4n 6OREI7N INTELLI7ENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT ,6ISA - .ollects 3'$re1n nte))1ence with in #nited +tates - 9hen foreign intelligence gathering is a3!1ncant (%r($!e of an inestigation - .reates a special court 6$re1n Inte))1ence S%rve))ance C$%rt ,6ISC - US PATRIOT ACTexpanded &udges from O to ==
Page 7 of 23
- er! secret and ex-parte proceedings - Pr$+a+)e Ca%!e" - N$t whether monitored part! is inoled in a criminal actiit! - 7ather% whether there/s probable cause that the part! to be monitored is a 3'$re1n ($:er or an 3a1ent $' a '$re1n ($:er
- ,f the person to be monitored is aU.S. Ct2en; then must establish if the part!/s actiities 3ma/ or 3are a+$%t t$ inole criminal iolations
- +ureillance must be 3!$)e)/ drected at obtaining intelligence exclusiel! from 3'$re1n ($:er! - N$ 3!%+!tanta) )rders last for QA da!s - Amendement!" - permits “targeting of persons reasonabl! belieed to be located outside the #nited +tates to ac4uire foreign intelligence information"
7LO@AL RELIE6 6OUNDATION v. O>NEIL - #'+' based ,slamic humanitarian relief organi8ation - +ei8ed documents without warrant - The executie directors were agents of a foreign power UNITED STATES v. ISA - Parents murdered child - embers of the Palestine 2iberation >rgani8ation - 3ct re4uires retention of eidence of a crime - o re4uirement that the crime be related to foreign intelligence USA PATRIOT ACT In Re Sea)ed Ca!e NSA SURVAILLANCE & )ntercepted communications where one party was outside the #nited "tates - Maintained a *watch list+ of #.". citizens CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL - 3rgue that their communications areprobably intercepted because the! communicate with clients outside of the #'+' who are suspected of terrorism (3mnest! ,nternational)
Page 8 of 23
- .ourt found that their in&ur! was too speculative - uture in&ur! - .ourt outline multiple steps in determining how sureillance ta$es place and how %n)
- D!!ent" - 1arm is not too speculatie% in fact it is li$el! to ta$e place - Ruestion is whether the in&ur! is actuall! or imminentC - 2i$el! to be intercepted because; - These communications are the $ind the 3ct authori8ed them to listen to - +trong otie to listen - o/t/s past behaior - 1arm “certainly impeding" has never +een the re4uirement of standing &LAYMAN and 6@I" Two cases dealing with +3 surrailance and come out opposite wa!s &LAYMAN v. O@AMA - ust hae “reasonable articulable suspicion" (73+) that the search 4uer! is associated with one or more specied terrorist orgs - Bul$ metadata collection iolates a reasonable expectation of priac! - *istinguished "mith (Pen 7egister) the got retains all the data - 7eal prospect that the program will go on foreer
- *i0erent relationship between phone compan! in"mith - 1ere the phone compan! is aiding the got' in massie sureillance - The technolog! is di0erent than in the OAs when "mith decision came out - The technolog! allows for greater amount of information gathered - The information in a cell phone is greater than in the OAs IN RE 6@I - B, gathered phone records from telephone serice proiders - inds "mith controlling - Transmit data to Hrd part! who uses it during the ordinar! course of business - >nl! metadata not the content of the communication - $ecessary to $now phone meta to uncoer terrorist connections - The data will show man! information but cant $now what until the data is aggregated and anal!8ed
ANONYMITY TALEY v. STATE O6 CALI6ORNIA - *istributing political pamphlets - 23 >rdinance re4uired the “true names and addresses of the ownersNor agents of the person sponsoring said hand-bill" - The importance of anon!mous political pamphlets - ight prohibit peaceful political discussion
Page 9 of 23
McINTYRE v. O5IO ELECTIONS COMMISSION - +ometimes an author ma! want to remain anon!mous - ight be more persuasie n$t $nowing the author/s identit! - 3non!mit! pamphleteering is a honorable tradition - 3non!mit! is a shield from the t!rann! of the ma&orit! - DISSENT; - +calia gies examples where people must gie their identit!
- Ex; parades% public-access t% on-campus speech sponsorship - 2ess li$el! to lie if held accountable for speech DOE v. CA5ILL - +mall town ma!or - egatie comments posted online - .omcast reealed the ,P/s owner - S%mmar/ 8%d1ement standard for unmas$ing *oe/s identit! - Too eas!; chill speech - +elf censoring e0ect STANLEY v. 7EOR7IA - 3lleged boo$ma$ing actiities - +ei8ed obscene moies on Smm lm - Priate possession of obscene material cannot be made a crime - 7ight to satisf! his intellectual and emotional needs in the comfort of his (rvate h$me - 7egulating priac! does not reach into one/s own home sborne v. hio does not appl! to .hild Porn cases
IN6ORMATION A@OUT BST AMEND. ACTIVITIES STAN6ORD v. TE AS - 9hile inestigating allegations of communist aliations% police performed a general search - Police too$ possession of man! documents including marriage certicate% bills% and personal led
- 3ll pac$ed into =5 cartons - ound no eidence - .onstitution prohibits a 1enera) :arrant - 1istor!; searching documents and literature then destro!ing it - 9arrants must particularl! described; - things to be sei8ed - E+PE.,322L when the! are boo$s and the ideas that the! contain
Page 10 f o23
urcher v. The "tanford -ailyJournalists too$ photos of a iolent protest% police re4uested the photos from the newspaper' The court said that the ourth 3mend' should be applied with “scrupulous exactitude'" $/0 v. labama priate group doesnMt hae to disclose name and addresses of their members' Barnblatt v. #nited "tates,nterest in inestigating communist part! aliations outweighed his rights' "helton v. Tuc%er +truc$ down a law re4uiring teachers to disclose the list of organi8ations that belong to'
7ON#ALES v. 7OO7LE - ot' re4uested a sample of GA%AAA urls from oogle/s search index - ot' claims the #72s are only to conduct a stud! on internet trends - oogle claims the loss of trust among users - 3nd 7ule ?F because discoer! is duplicatie% cumulatie% and obtained from a less burdensome% and less expensie source - P,, can easil! be reealed because people do anit! searches - ,ncludes ++ and .. numbers MEDICAL IN6ORMATION PRIVACY 7RISWOLD v. CONN. PLANNED PARENT5OOD v. CASE LAWRENCE v. TEAS W5ALEN v. ROE CARTER v. @ROADLAWS MED. CTR. DOE v. COROU75 $' WARRIN7TON DOE v. SEPTA 6ER7USON v. CITY O6 C5ARLESTON IDENTI6ICATION 5I@EL v. SIT5 8UDICIAL - Police is free to as$ a person for identication in the ordinar! course of business - #pon reasonable suspicion a police ocer can stop and ta$e steps to inestigate further 7REIDIN7ER v. DAVIS - ++ for oting - .ompelling state interest for the restriction (re4uiring ++) - >ther wa!s to preent oter fraud and not necessaril! re4uiring ++
Page 11 f o23
PU@LIC ACCESS TO 7OVERNMENT RECORDS DOE v. S5A&UR - .an an indiidual (who was sexuall! assaulted) prosecute someone in a ciil suit under a pseudon!mC (3non!mousC) - .i Pro 7ule =A(a) re4uires to state names of parties - 1oweer% court can examine seeral factors to proceed anon!mousl!; - .hallenge the goernment - *isclose utmost intimate details - 3dmitting details that ma! lead to criminal prosecution - +u0er in&ur! if identied - Pre&udiced - The court did not allow -oe to proceed anon!mousl! because; - Plainti0 brought the lawsuit - 7e4uested damages - 3ccused the * publicl! - Public has access to the courts -oe $o. 1 v. (ol%o,n a sexual abuse case against a rabbi at a priate Jewish school% the .ourt allowed the P to remain anon!mous
6OIA ,6reed$m O' In'$rmat$n Act E*em(t$n!" - ational defense of foreign polic! - ,nternal personnel rules and agenc! practices - Trade secrets and nancial information - emos and letters between agencies - Personnel and medical les - 2aw enforcement purpose Exempted info can be redacted US DO8 v. RC66P - *oes disclosing B, Urap sheets/ constitute an unwarranted inasion of personal priac! under >,3C - Because the B, complies one/s records into one Usummar!/ of an indiidual/s criminal histor!% indicates that was intended for internal use and not for public use - There ma! be an interest in an indiidual/s criminal histor!% but >,3/s purpose is to act as a “chec$" against a federal agenc!
NATIONAL ARC5IVES v. 6AVIS5 - Pictures from an apparent suicide re4uested under >,3 - >,3 exemption for medical les - .aselaw and tradition of famil! members controlling and directing the disposition of the bod! of a dead relatie
Page 12 f o23
- Therefore% limit the exposure of their dead relaties pictures of remains to the public
LA POLICE DEPT. v. UNITED REPORTIN7 PU@LIS5IN7 CORP. &ALLSTROM v. CITY O6 COLUM@US CLINE v. RO7ERS S5EET# v. MORNIN7 CALL INC. PAUL P. v. VENIERO PRIVACY TORTS 1NT/US1ON U(ON S$CLUS1ON >ne who ntent$na))/ ntr%de!% ph!sicall! or otherwise% upon the !$)t%de $r !ec)%!$n of another or his priate a0airs or concerns% is sub&ect to liabilit! to the other for inasion of his priac!% if the insertion would beh1h)/ $en!ve t$ a rea!$na+)e (er!$n.
B. In %!$n $ne>! !$)t%de . U(tr $n F. 51h)/ Oen!ve NADER v. 7ENERAL MOTORS CORP. - harassed ader; Vlist in boo$ page S5W - ,nformation about plainti0 that is alread! $nown could hardl! be regarded as priate - ere obseration in public (and following) is not actionable - But sometimes can be “oer8ealous" and can be actionable DIETEMANN v. TIME INC. - ,nteriew with U4uac$/ doctor in his own home and hidden camera recording - 1e inited them into his home% but did not ta$e on the ris$ of others recording - 1idden cameras are not “indispensable tools" of news gathering - 1is 4uac$er! was priate and didnMt open up to the public
DESNIC& v. AMERICAN @ROADCASTIN7 CO. - E!e .enter interiew about cataract surger! - 3greed not to include undercoer footage - +ent a camera crew to a di0erent oce - o iolation of priac!; - o patients in ideo
Page 13 f o23
- o disruption & >pen to public (contrast with -ietemann2 S5ULMAN v. 7ROUP W. PRODUCTIONS; INC. - 7ecorded an auto accident and broadcast it on T - .rash site; no expectation of priac!' - o control of propert! - Public highwa!Droad
- 1elicopter ambulance; sered as an ambulance and had an expectation of priac! there
- Placing a microphone on medical personnel to intercept and amplif! the conersation with the patient was a h1h)/ $en!ve
((/551 7ALELLA v. ONASSIS CALI6ORNIA ANTI-PAPARA##I ACT - La+)t/ for - 6nowingl! entering land - 9ithout permission To ph!sicall! inade the priac! of the plainti0 -- Intent to capture pictures ideo etc' - 9hen the sub&ect is engaged in(er!$na) $r 'am)a) actiit! - Oen!ve t$ a rea!$na+)e (er!$n 21D$O 2O$U/1S" - Purpose of ar$%!n1 $r 1rat'/n1 !e*%a) de!re - iews photos or ideos - of someone :th$%t ther
N$te" loo$ X particular state laws' 2oo$ into ,2 reenge porn statutes (U6L1C D1SCLOSU/$ O0 (/12T$ 0CTS - ie publicit! - To Priate life or matter - ,f matter is h1h)/ $en!ve to a reasonable person - ot legitimate public interest
Page 14 f o23
'hat is a private matter4
7ILL v. 5EARST PU@LIS5IN7 CO. - .ouple photographed together in a public place in san “a0ectionate" pose - oluntaril! assumed pose in a public place - oluntaril! exposed themseles to the “pubic ga8e" - *ispla!s an eer!da! incident DAILY TIMES DEMOCRAT v. 7RA5AM - Photo of a s$irt being shot up in a newspaper (funhouse) - .ourts een thin$s it could be classied as “obscene “ and o0ensie to modest! and decenc! - Just because the Umisfortune/ happened in public% does not mean it/s not a priate matter )s it $ewsworthy4
Le4it p!7lic interest3 or "or7id C!riosit)3 SIPPLE v. C5RONICLE PU@LIS5IN7 - +aed president/s life and was “outted" for being ga! and participating in + ga! politics - 1is sexual orientation was n$t (rvate fact
- 9as priate to some regions not all - ewsworth! - *ispel notions of homosexualit! - President/s bias towards homosexuals and dela! in than$ing +ipple - .ontrast with; “morbid and sensational pr!ing into priate lies for its own sa$e" S5ULMAN ,a1an - ,noluntaril! inole in car accident - 3dd P/s image added nothing signicant to stor! (could hae blurred) - 9ere the words and face legitimate public interestC - P7>B3B2L not @ONOME v. &AYSEN - 3uthor of boo$ suggesting her “bo!friend" Uraped/ her - o name of bo!friend but eer!one $new who he was - 1ae a right to tell her own person stor! - P was an incident thereto 6IRST AMEND. LIMITS CO v. CO5N - Broadcast the name of a dead rape ictim in iolation of state law - cannot prohibit because the name was public record alread!
Page 15 f o23
6LORIDA STAR v. @86 - lorida statute prohibiting publishing sexual assault ictim names - ,mposing damages for publishing the full name iolated the irst 3mend' @ARTNIC&I v. VAPPER - #nion leader on phone was secretl! recorded tal$ing about negotiations - Broadcast on radio station about public a0airs paper obtains information legall!% it can publish it - ,f - aBut here% a third part! didnMt obtain it legall! - .ourt balanced the benets and determine that the speech was (%+)c c$ncern
DE6AMATION - alse *efamator! - #npriileged publication to a Hrd part! - ault at least negligence !ibel written - *oes not need to show special harm - Presume damages "lander spo$en - ust show a “special harm" unless"lander 0er "e
-
.riminal o0ense 2oathsome disease atter incompatible with one/s business% trade% profession% or oce +erious sexual misconduct
#ERAN v. AMERICAN ONLINE; INC. - Pran$ giing out phone number to P claiming he/s selling >$lahoma bombing tshirts - 7adio station published etc' - 3>2 was not the ma$er of the statement - CDA G FH" “o proider or user of an interactie computer serice shall be treated as the publisher or spea$er an information proided b! another information content proider" - eaning% that defamator! statements made on 3>2/s message boards were not cause liabilit! for 3>2
- 2iabilit! if Editorial unction - ,f 3>2 had $nowledge of the defamator! statement% the! should remoe it - B#T that would chill speech and force 3>2 and others to delete all negatie message 5irst mendment !imits
NEW YOR& TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
Page 16 f o23
- 3ds in ew Lor$ Times defaming an elected commissioner - +lander Per +e; was a public ocial - 9ant to allow criticism of public gures - eed act%a) ma)ce - 6nowledge it was 'a)!e $r :th rec<)e!! d!re1ard of its truthfulness 7ERT# v. RO@ERTS WELC5 INC. - +ome people achiee perasie fame or notoriet! for all purposes in all context
- ,n this case% it was a police ocer - *istinction between t/(e! of public gures - 3ll purpose and context; need actual malice - 2imited purpose and context; local gures etc' - Police ocer was not an all-purpose gure< did not needact%a) ma)ce 6ALSE LI75T ne who gives publicity to a matter concerning another if 62 it would be highly oensive to a reasonable person, and 12 actor had %nowledge of or acted in rec%less disregard 5irst mend. !imits TIME v. 5ILL amil! held prisoner in their home for =Q hours b! H conicts% the pla! portra!ed - the eents di0erentl! in a false light - 3 &ur! would nd that the portra!al is not accurate% perhaps negligent% and probabl! not true IIED E7treme and outrageous conduct intentionally or rec%lessly causes severe emotional distress 5USTLER MA7A#INE v. 6ALWELL - 3dertisement in 1ustler/s maga8ine about a priest haing drun$ sex with his mom (.ampari adertisement) - *i0erent standard for public gures because cartoonists and satirists would then be liable - ust show “actual malice" because he is a “public gure" SNYDER v. P5ELPS - 9B. pic$eting near a soldier/s funeral - or =st 3mend' immunit!% was the speech “matter of public concernC" - 3s long as it relates to an! matter; political% social% and other interest of the communit! - .ontrast; -un 8 Bradstreet credit report info was not a public concern - 9B. spo$e of a broader topic of public interestYnot &ust speech related to +n!der - o liabilit! under ,,E*
Page 17 f o23
RI75T O6 PU@LICITY $ame, image, or li%eness for commercial use without consent CARSON v. 5ERE>S 8O5NNY PORTA@LE TOILETS - .arson/s right has been iolated because his name was used - 7ight of Publicit! protects the commercial interest of celebrities identities RAYMEN v. UNITED SENIOR ASSOCIATION - Photos of plainti0s $issing and used in an anti-ga! propaganda adertisement - Big 4uestion is whether using an image for a non-prot organi8ation is for a commercial purpose - ot commercial purpose% despite the ad solicited political contributions 6IN7ER v. OMNI PU@LICATION - eatured picture of famil! and article about increased fertilit! - ewsworthiness exception; liberal construction but must relate to the article 0irst mend. Limits #ACC5INI v. SCRIPP-5OWARD @ROADCASTIN7 - 7ecorded an entire canon-ball act and showed it on T - *epried of commercial alue
- 9as newsworth! - cop!right claimN'
PRIVACY AT SC5OOL N8 v. TLO - .aught smo$ing in a bathroom and lied -I school searched her possessions and found that she was selling drugs and had rolling paper - otied mother police - 5th 3mend prohibition on unreasonable searches and sei8es applies to school ocialC LE+% but not as strong in schools - -.hildren hae no expectation of priac! in unnecessary ob&ects the! bring into school - .ourt thin$s this is wrong because students can bring other personal items li$e h!giene products and photos - But the school has an interest in academic disciple and a sound academic enironment - 9arrant are unsuitable% howeer% for a school enironment - 5th 3mend' re4uires a reasonable search and not a “probable cause"
Page 18 f o23
- Test; - 9as the action &ustied at its conceptionC - 9as the search reasonabl! related to the circumstances that &ustied the interference in the =st placeC
VERONIA SC5OOL DISTRICT v. ACTON - +chool had a random drug testing polic! for extracurricular sports because student athletes were the leaders of the school/s drug culture must consent before participating in sports -- Parents o warrant re4uired for “special needs" where it would be too burdensome li$e in public schools
- *istinguish T2>; here it is a blan$et suspicion s' T2> was a search based on indiidual suspicion of a wrongdoing
- +tudents hae a lesser expectation of priac! (albeit still hae .onstitutional rights) - accinations and ph!sical exams - 3thletes hae a lesser expectation of priac! because the! get na$ed in the loc$er room “suiting up" and showering etc' - Joining a team% the student oluntaril! sub&ected themseles to regulations and reduced priac! - The search onl! determines the existence of drugsYnot other factors - 7esults onl! gien to school personnel and not the police
@OARD O6 EDUCATION v. EARLS - 2i$e E7>,3 reasonable suspicion for extracurricular actiities - ot' has a compelling interest in ghting the school/s drug problem 6ERPA" Sch$$) Rec$rd! (1 BHH OWASSO INDEPT. SC5OOL DISTRICT v. 6ALVO - .hallenged peer grading as exposing student/s records - ,t would be too burdensome for teachers - .ourt doubts that .ongress intended to interene so drasticall! WOR&PLACE PRIVACY O>CONNOR v. ORTE7A - Entered an oce from >rtega/s oce and obtained personal material from the loc$ed cabinet and des$ - 9hether an emplo!ee has a reasonable expectation of priac! is a case-b!-case ealuation - >rtega had that expectation because he didnMt share his oce and occupied his oce for =O !ears - >btaining a warrant would be undul! burdensome for eer!da! business - The reasonable standard is sucient for emplo!ees and inestigating emplo!ee misconduct
Page 19 f o23
&-MART v. TROTTI - 2oc$er loc$ proided b! emplo!er - +earched loc$er and purse to loo$ for a missing price mar$ gun - *isregarded the emplo!ees expectation of priac! T5OMPSON v. 8O5NSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLE7E - +ilent ideo (no oral communication because E.P3 iolation otherwise) expectation of priac!C - 7easonable - o - Place was exposed and an!one wal$ing b! could see
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VON RAA@ - .ustoms ocials (high drug trac$ing) get drug tested - *eter drug usage and customs ocials hae a gun Z enough state interest to &ustif! - >utweighs the priac! interest of the emplo!ees - +hould expect e0ectie in4uir! into their tness - +calia; - no eidence that drug use will encourage bribe ta$ing etc' C5ANDLER v. MILLER
- 7e4uiring public ocialsDcandidates to ta$e a drug test - o eidence of abuse @ORSE v. PIECE 7OODS S5OP - 3t will emplo!ee forced to sign a consent form for drug testingC - 9as discharged - iring an at-will emplo!ees permissibleunless it iolated public polic! - ,t is an intrusion upon seclusion - ,f it was an intrusion it certainl! would iolate public polic! - ,f substantial and highl! o0ensie iolation of priac! CONSENTIN7 TO SEARC5ES @A77S v. EA7LE-PIC5ER INDUSTRIES Inc.
- actor! Z dangerous actiities (h!draulic presses and for$lifts) - *rug problem at the plant - Posted a new drug polic! about submitting to a blood or urine test notied when the! will conduct the test - ,f donMt submit% the! can leae and 4uit - o expectation of priac! since on notice about drug testing
TESTIN7; JUESTIONS; AND POLY7RAP5S
Page 20 f o23
7REENAWALT v. INDIANA DEPT. $' CORRECTIONS - to $eep her &ob% must submit t a ps!chological test -I an unreasonable test into her thoughtsC - 5th 3mend should not be interpreted to reach putting 4uestions to a person% een if the! elicit personal or priate info - ,mplications; no cross-examination - Police would need a search warrant to as$ 4uestions etc' NASA v. NELSON - *rug 4uestions are reasonable for tness of their emplo!ees POLY7RAP5 TESTS (1. BHK TELEP5ONE MONITORIN7 - monitored phone calls at a call center K was allowed to ma$e priate calls - >erheard emplo!ee tal$ing about getting a new &ob -I red her - 9as this in the ordinar! course of businessC - +he consented to monitoring sales calls >T personal calls - >nl! can monitor to determine whether the call is a sales call or personal - .ould hae listed to determine whether it is a sales or personal call< nothing more DEAL v. SPEARS - E[TE+,> of phone with house and business - 3ttached a recording deice to catch person who committee burglar! (thought it was an inside &ob) - 937E* that if she does not cut down on the phone calls the! will record - #sed this warning to imply consent of being recorded - .ourt does not impl! consent - 7ecoded ?5DO and be!ond ordinar! course of business SMYT5 v. PILLS@URY CO. - o priac! interest in communications oer compan! email - ,nasion upon seclusion - o person would nd a compan! intercepting emails to be “highl! o0ensie" LAVENT5AL v. &NAPE& - +earched computer for software not allowed (including personal tax software to run a side business) - *>T prohibited “theft" and dened it broadl! as stealing compan! time - Put the P on notice because sent a letter about “unocial software" - 7easonable expectation of priac!C - Les he did - >n societ! is expected to acceptC >PE - Emplo!ee search Z =) reasonable and ?) &ustied at its inception
Page 21 f o23
- Les because cited he was alwa!s late and spent most of his time doing non-*>T wor$
- 7easonable because it was related to the reason wh! the search was conducted U.S. v. #IE7LER - .hild porn from wor$ computer -I ,T department :agged -I notied B, - .ompan! gae consent to search computer - .omputer is the t!pe of wor$place propert! that remains within the control of the emplo!er - 1ad complete admin priileges and monitored the trac
6INANCIAL IN6O 6AIR CREDIT REPORTIN7 ACT ,6CRA - applies to “an! consumer reporting agenc!" that furnishes “consumer reports" - .onsumer report; an! communication b! an agenc! about creditworthiness or reputation or character or reputation etc' - .onsumer 7eporting 3genc!; assembles and ealuates credit or consumer credit information - .an sue for negligence or failure to follow the act U.S. v. SPO&EO; Inc. - complaint alleging +po$eo is a credit reporting agenc! SMIT5 v. @O@ SMIT5 C5EVY INC - *ispute arose because dealer gae a double discount on a car and attempted to collect the di0erence -I pulled credit histor! again - .73 allows to pull histor! in connection with a transaction initiated b! a consumer - .onsumer report means to determine eligibilit! for a benet - The dealer pulled the credit histor! a second time as part of a ne: eent SARVER v. EPERIAN - o strict liabilit! to incorrect info on credit report
- ust gie notice for credit reporting agenc! to inestigate - .ant be liable in absence of notice - .redit report is generated at the time of in4uir! - .ant hae Experian inestigate eer! anomal! after pulling the histor! SLOANE v. EJUI6A -
Page 22 f o23
TORT LAW WOL6E v. M@NA AMERICA @AN& - 3ttempting to assert a state negligence claim against a credit card compan! for issuing a credit card to a person who stile P/s identit! - .ourt did not grant a motion to dismiss - ,t is foreseeable that identit! theft can happen and the ban$ should implement some securit! measure (reasonable and cost e0ectie) to monitor! for such ris$ DATA SECURITY PINEDA v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES - .. transaction re4uired 8ip code -I led to locating P/s home address - ,s 8ip code P,,C - 1ad P/s credit card number% name% and 8ip recorded in a database - software loo$ed up P/s address (reerse search) - P,, dened as “information concerning the cardholder" - *id congress intend part of an address li$e ipC LE+ APPLE v. &RESCENT -
Page 23 f o23