AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability
of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel


     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Privacy

     Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and Dead Bodies, 2014 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.

     A woman fell into a deep sleep after a taxing few days taking care of her Alzheimer-stricken mother. Family members were unable to rouse her and EMTs arrived, waking her up with an ammonia capsule. She declined being taken to a hospital. In the interim, an officer received a call from 911 requesting assistance at the residence. When he arrived, one of the EMTs told him that the woman had "been a little combative to herself," was upset, and had been "scruffing and hitting herself in the head. He talked to a hospital where she had previously been diagnosed as suffering from caregiver breakdown and Pick's disease, which can involve headaches and seizures, He decided to seize the woman in her bedroom and take her to the hospial for a psychological evaluation. A federal appeals court held that the officer had arguable probable cause to seize the woman as a possible danger to herself, rejecting her unlawful seizure and false imprisonment claims. Further proceedings were ordered, however, on whether the officer's conduct during the seizure was done in an extraordinary manner unusually harmful to plaintiff's privacy interests, such as refusing to leave her alone while she removed her nightgown and put on other clothing, which he directed her to do, forcing her to disrobe, which implicated her right to privacy and personal security. He failed to summon an available female EMT or female relative for that purpose, and there was also testimony that he attempted to pull her nightgown from her shoulder, and "used the threat of deadly force to compel her to remove her shorts, in order to first put on undergarments, by patting his gun after she initially refused." If true, the appeals court said, this violated her clearly established rights." May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia, #15-11749, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 20501 (11th Cir.)
     Minnesota driver's license holders, filed suit against local counties, cities, and individual defendants alleging that they violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, by accessing or disclosing personal information from the driver's license database without a permissible purpose. The individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Some defendants argued that the law does not impose liability on a public official who merely accesses and views a person’s motor vehicle record. The statutory term “obtain” is unambiguous and controls defendants' argument that the rule of lenity entitled them to qualified immunity, which they were not. Kampschroer v. Anoka County, #14-3527, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16173 (8th Cir.).
     In a prior 1996 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requires government agencies to honor requests for the booking photographs of criminal defendants who have appeared in court during ongoing proceedings. Despite that, the U.S. Marshals Service denied the plaintiff newspaper's request for booking photographs of Detroit-area police officers indicted on federal charges. The federal appeals court upheld the denial and overruled the 1996 case, finding that FOIA Exemption 7(C) protects a non-trivial privacy interest in keeping "personal facts away from the public eye." Criminal defendants, the court stated, do not forfeit their interest in controlling private information while their cases remain pending, and federal regulations and policies prevented mug-shot disclosure absent a law-enforcement purpose in such disclosure. Detroit Free Press v. Dep't of Justice, #14-1670, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 12928, 2016 Fed App. 164P (6th Cir.), 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2009 (6th Cir.).
     After a man parked his car on the street outside his suburban home in violation of an ordinance, an officer placed a parking ticket face down under his windshield wiper. The ticket included the man's name, birth date, sex, weight, height, driver's license number, an outdated address, and the vehicle identification number and description of his car. He then filed an attempted class action lawsuit under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2721, forbidding the disclosure of personal information obtained in connection with motor vehicle records except for specified uses "in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding" and "use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions." Upholding the rejection of the privacy claim, a federal appeals court noted that there was no evidence that anyone had ever taken a parking ticket off a car windshield in the suburb in question and used the personal information on the ticket for any purpose. It stated that, had the municipality made all the information present on the ticket accessible to the public on the Internet or placed "highly sensitive" information, such as the motorist's Social Security number, on the ticket, there might have been a greater risk of a "nontrivial" invasion of privacy that outweighed any benefit to law enforcement. Senne v. Village of Palatine, #13-3671, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7118 (7th Cir.).
     A federal appeals court held that a telephone metadata program under which the National Security Agency (NSA) collected in bulk "on an ongoing daily basis" the metadata associated with numerous phone calls made by and to Americans, was not authorized by Sec. 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The appeals court did not consider the constitutionality of the program or rule that a preliminary injunction was required, leaving it for the trial court on remand to consider the propriety of preliminary relief. The trial court had denied relef, holding that the plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit against the federal government about this program, but there was a right of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702. ACLU v. Clapper, #14-42, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7531 (2nd Cir.).
    A village was entitled to summary judgment on claims that information placed on its parking tickets violated the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. While the information listed on the tickets was a "disclosure, it was an acceptable use of the information for purposes of identification and verification of the person to whom the ticket was issued. The court commented, however, that not all the information on the tickets may be necessary, while not spelling out which information might be problematic.
Senne v. Palatine, #1:10-cv-05434, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 168677 (N.D. Ill.). For prior opinions, see Senne v. Village of Palatine, #10-3243, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. en banc. 2012), cert. denied, #12-573, 133 S. Ct. 2850, 186 L. Ed. 2d 909, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4737.
     A man accused by a male teenager of kidnapping and raping him sued investigating police. He claimed that they barged into his hotel room without consent or a search warrant and seized his wallet and other items. He also claimed that they did this after illegally obtaining his video rental records from a video store in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710 in an attempt to collaborate the teenager's story that he had spent some time in the hotel room watching specific videos. Criminal charges against the man are currently pending in state court. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed the unlawful search and privacy claims. The privacy claims were against the video store. The appeals court noted that, while constitutional claims might be litigated during the criminal trial, money damages were not available in that proceeding. The trial court should have stayed the proceeding rather than dismissed the case, because otherwise his claims might be time barred by the time the prosecution was concluded. Gakuba v. O'Brien, #12-3345, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 5866 (7th Cir.).
      The highest court in Maryland has upheld an order requiring the state police to release records the NAACP requested concerning internal investigations of complaints of racial profiling during traffic stops and searches. The records were to be released with the names and identification of individual officers redacted. The court found that, after officers' names, the names of complainants, and all identifying information were removed, the reports were not personnel records or the "records of an individual" for the purpose of any exemption from disclosure under a state public information law. Md. Dep't of State Police v. Md. State Conf. of NAACP Branches, #41-10, 2013 Md. Lexis 15.
    A police officer placing a parking ticket underneath a car's windshield wiper blade may have violated the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The court noted that the ticket disclosed the full name, address, date of birth, sex, height, weight, and driver's license number of the driver, with all that information obtained from state records. "The possibilities for identity theft are obvious," the court stated, and the municipality failed to show how the disclosed information being stated on the ticket played a role in its law enforcement efforts so as to come within an exception to the statute. The court rejected arguments by the municipality that the plaintiff motorist was required to prove that someone other than himself actually viewed the information on the ticket on his vehicle in order to pursue his claim under the statute. Senne v. Village of Palatine, #10-3243, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 16328 (7th Cir. en banc.).
    A city properly redacted information concerning crime victims and witnesses in various police reports and arrest citations released to the media under a Kentucky state Open Records law. Releasing the home addresses, phone numbers, and driver's licenses of victims and witnesses was covered by an exemption to the law for personal information which, if released, could amount to a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." A unanimous state intermediate appeals court ruled that this exception could also be used to redact the names of all juveniles from the requested documents. Kentucky New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, #2010-CA-001742 2012 Ky. App. Unpub. Lexis 299.
     When protesters gathered outside a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and vandalized the lobby of the hotel where delegates were staying, a photojournalist took pictures of the mayhem. A county police officer reviewing the hotel's security tapes found out that she had been present taking pictures. Deputized as a federal marshal, he helped obtain a search warrant for her home, where it was believed her computer equipment containing the photos of the protesters would be found. During the execution of the warrant, her computer hard drive was seized. She sued the federal government, claiming that the search violated the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000aa et seq. She sought damages for the search, although she was neither arrested nor charged. The appeals court found that a suspect exception to the Act applied to the claim because the circumstances provided probable cause to believe that she was involved with criminal activity with vandals at the hotel. The mere fact that the officer knew that she was a journalist did not destroy probable cause. Sennett v. United States, #11-1421, 667 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2012).
     A man active in advocating the right to carry concealed firearms in public openly carried a holstered handgun into retail stores on two occasions. Both times, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and had his gun confiscated. He was not prosecuted and each time his gun was eventually returned. He claimed that his conduct was not disorderly and was protected under the federal and state constitutions. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest claims. The officers could not have anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court would subsequently issue Second Amendment opinions raising an issue about whether his conduct was lawful and were not required to balance alleged firearms rights under the Wisconsin state constitution against the disorderly conduct law. The officers also were not liable for violating the plaintiff's rights under the federal Privacy Act by requesting his Social Security number during one of the incidents, since it was not clearly established that they had to inform him whether the disclosure of his Social Security number was voluntary or mandatory, and they had not denied him any "right, benefit, or privilege" based on his refusal to disclose the number. The court also rejected claims for unlawful seizure of his property, the handgun. Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee, #10-2356, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1965 (7th Cir.).
     A federal appeals court ruled that residential telephone customers could proceed with their claims that the federal government, with the assistance of major telecommunications companies "engaged in widespread warrantless eavesdropping in the United States following the September 11, 2001, attacks," constituting a "communications dragnet of ordinary American citizens." The court found that the plaintiffs had made detailed allegations and claims of harm, that the claims were not barred by the "political question" doctrine, and that the fact that the claim of illegal wiretapping arose in the context of national security issues did not impose on the plaintiffs any heightened scrutiny requirement in terms of the details they had to provide in their complaint. Claim were asserted concerning alleged violations of the First Amendment right of association, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and violation of federal wiretapping and privacy laws. Jewel v. National Security Agency, #10-15616, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 25951 (9th Cir.).
      A failed candidate for State's Attorney sued the incumbent State's Attorney and others, claiming that they violated his Fourth Amendment and due process rights by publically disclosing that he was under investigation by Illinois state agencies for possible violations of tax law, unemployment insurance law, and legal ethics. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal appeals court held that the fact that a candidate for elected office is under investigation for ethical and legal violations is a matter of "substantial public interest." The plaintiff had not included a state law claim under a state statute requiring that such investigations be kept confidential, and the court found no violation of a federal constitutional right to privacy. Wolfe v. Schaefer, #10-1016, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18159 (7th Cir.).
    A man who enlisted in the Army had his military service terminated when he failed a background check because a court clerk sent the recruiter his juvenile criminal record after receiving a request to do so. He sued the court clerk for alleged violation of his due process rights. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim for a violation of his right to privacy. He lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in his juvenile records due to release forms he signed in connection with his enlistment, and the clerk's disclosure was "neither shockingly degrading nor egregiously humiliating." Van Zee v. Hanson, #10-1588, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 859 (8th Cir.).
     After a motorist was decapitated in a car crash, two highway patrolmen allegedly e-mailed nine "gruesome" death pictures of the body to family members and friends on Halloween for their "shock value." The pictures later were posted on the Internet. The decedent's family sued for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A California appeals court found that the trial court improperly rejected the privacy claim, since the dissemination of the photos in this manner served no legitimate law enforcement purpose or public interest, appearing to be for the purpose of "pure morbidity and sensationalism." The plaintiffs also had a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court ruled, since it was foreseeable that the display of the pictures would cause them "devastating trauma." Catsouras v. Calif. Highway Patrol, #G039916, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 113 (4th Dist.).
     A police officer, during an arrest, searched the arrestee's cell phone and found stored nude pictures of the arrestee and his girlfriend in sexually compromising positions. These photos were allegedly later shared with members of the public and other officers. The girlfriend filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against officers and the town, claiming that stress from the incident caused her to suffer depression, anxiety, loss of sleep, weight fluctuation, and nightmares, as well as the loss of her relationship with the arrestee. A federal court dismissed the girlfriend's lawsuit, finding that she lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the photos stored in the cellphone. Having lent the phone to the arrestee two months before, she did not have control or possession of it, or the ability to prevent others from accessing the photos stored on it. Casella v. Borders, Civil #3:09CV00019, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80357 (W.D. Va.).
     During a search of an arrestee, officers found a cell phone that had stored on it a number of nude photos of the arrestee and a former girlfriend in sexually explicit poses. In a lawsuit for violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the arrestee claimed that these photos were then shared with both other officers and members of the public. While stating that the alleged actions were "unprofessional and reprehensible," the court found that there was no showing that the town that employed the officers was aware, either actually or constructively, of any widespread constitutional violations by the officers. The officer who allegedly searched through the photos stored on the cell phone was entitled to qualified immunity as his alleged actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Newhard v. Borders, Civil #3:09CV00020, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80387 (W.D. Va.).
     A police officer did not violate a motorist's federal or state privacy rights when, during a phone call to his home, he told the motorist's stepmother that he was issuing a summons for the misdemeanor offense of driving without insurance, and that the motorist should come to the police station to pick it up. The driver had provided the officer with proof of insurance at the scene of an accident, and the officer subsequently learned that the policy had been cancelled. Larsen v. Johnston, #08-4184, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8368 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     A bank president and CEO was properly awarded $100,000 in damages for emotional distress in his Privacy Act lawsuit claiming that information about him was improperly disclosed when the U.S. Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center, without authorization, provided an "Executive Summary" which was then disseminated by the media, having an adverse effect on him. While federal appeals courts are split on the issue of what damages can be awarded in such cases, there has been no resolution of this disagreement by the U.S. Supreme Court, and, therefore, prior binding 2nd Circuit precedent on the issue, allowing such awards, still applies. Jacobs v. Nat'l Drug Intelligence Ctr., No. 07-40776, 548 F.3d 375 (2nd Cir. 2008).
     A husband and wife claimed that a city police officer violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2724(a) by disclosing the wife's address to her former husband, against whom she had obtained a restraining order. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but a federal appeals court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to provide the jury with the notice of claim form which was in evidence and "central" to the plaintiffs' argument that the officer had falsified his report on an incident occurring after the notice of claim in order to create a potential defense to the lawsuit. Deicher v. Evansville, No. 07-2092, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20055 (7th Cir.).
     A motorist who was given a speeding ticket complained that she was subjected to "identity theft" after the local county clerk published the ticket, containing personal information, including her Social Security number, on the clerk's website. A federal appeals court found that any alleged privacy interest did not involve a fundamental right and was not sufficient to establish a violation of her 14th Amendment due process rights from the publication. Lambert v. Hartman, No. 07-3154, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4019 (6th Cir.).
     Thirty-four middle school students claimed that their privacy rights were violated by the installation and operation of video surveillance cameras in athletic locker rooms at the school, which resulted in them being videotaped while dressing and undressing. A federal appeals court ruled that these actions violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures, particularly their fundamental constitutional right not to expose their bodies to strangers of the opposite sex without it being reasonably necessary for some legitimate and "overriding" purpose. The court further found that the record did not show any concern for safety and security that would make the intrusion involved reasonable. The principal and assistant principal were not entitled to qualified immunity, but school officials not involved in authorizing the videotaping, and who were not aware of it, were granted such immunity. Brannum v. Overton County School Board, No. 06-5931, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3496 (6th Cir.).
     A woman arrested following an alleged drunk-driving accident did not show that police officials and the city violated her constitutional right to privacy when they disclosed her name, hometown, photograph, phone number, and her husband's occupation (undercover officer) after the charges were brought against her. Her husband was charged with operating the vehicle while impaired, and she was charged with obstructing by lying about who was driving the car, as well as resisting. Both she and her husband pled no contest to the criminal charges. The appeals court found that criminal suspects do not have a constitutional right of privacy concerning the nondisclosure of the information the police released, including information in the police report, especially information released in response to legitimate inquiries from the press submitted under a Michigan state Freedom of Information Act. Bailey v. City of Port Huron, No. 06-2375, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25489 (6th Cir.).
     In a prior decision, Anderson v. Blake, No. 05-6329, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28144 (10th Cir.), a federal appeals court ruled that a police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by rape victim claiming that he improperly released a videotape of her rape to a television station, which aired portions of it. Federal appeals court rejects officer's arguments that the victim did not have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the contents of the tape, or that her privacy right was not clearly established. On remand, a federal trial court dismissed the plaintiff's federal right to privacy and state intrusion upon seclusion claims against the reporter and television station owner. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiff's allegations about the officer's involvement in the publication of a portion of the videotape were not sufficient to show that the officer, the reporter, and the television station owner acted jointly or that the private parties acted under color of law. Anderson v. Suiters, No. 06-6134, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20686 (10th Cir.).
     The family of a person who died in fatal car crash failed to show that the actions of police in dealing with them following the accident violated their due process rights. No prior case recognized a due process right concerning the manner in which a family is notified of the death of a family member, and if there was any such right, it would only apply to conduct that was shocking to the conscience. In this case, the police did not act with deliberate indifference and their conduct was not conscience shocking. They did use "deception" to first obtain a photograph of the victim to aid in his identification, and did not tell the family he had died until they had made the identification. A statement the police made to the media concerning the accident was justified by the legitimate purpose of informing the public about a fatal collision. Estate of Gadway v. City of Norwich, No. 3:05-CV-935, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72561 (D. Conn.).
     Plaintiffs who claimed that Florida officials sold personal information from their driver's licenses and/or vehicle registrations to mass marketers failed to establish a claim for violation of their constitutional rights, but they could pursue a claim under the federal Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2721-2725 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The protections of the DPPA as to the privacy of driver's license data were specific enough to clearly establish what conduct was prohibited and thereby overcome any defense of qualified immunity. Collier v. Dickinson, No. 06-12614, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3111 (11th Cir.).
     In lawsuit challenging, on the basis of the constitutional right of privacy, a city ordinance criminalizing a "live sex act" business, the trial court improperly reached the merits of the case, and ruled that the business owner's customers could not assert a claim for relief under "any conceivable" set of allegations. Further proceedings ordered. Fleck & Assocs., Inc. v. Phoenix, No. 05-15293, 471 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) [N/R]
     Maine state employee did not violate federal constitutionally protected privacy rights by allegedly telling a man's daughter confidential facts about her grandmother's estate when the facts ultimately stemmed from documents filed in probate court which were public record. This was true even if the state employee violated a statutory mandate of confidentiality. Williams v. Baker, No. CV-05-183-B-W, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90192 (D. Maine).[N/R]
     Police officer was not liable to domestic violence victim for failing, while filling out paperwork to charge her ex-boyfriend with violation of a protective order, to check off box to keep her address confidential. The boyfriend, after his release from prison, allegedly subsequently obtained a copy of the paperwork containing her current address, and the victim accordingly feared that he would harm her, so she allegedly felt compelled to move to a new address. The plaintiff failed to show, as required for liability for violation of her right to privacy, that the officer acted with deliberate indifference to her rights. Hanigan v. City of Kent, Case No. C06-176, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89489 (W.D. Wash.).  [N/R]
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by rape victim claiming that he improperly released a videotape of her rape to a television station, which aired portions of it. Federal appeals court rejects officer's arguments that the victim did not have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the contents of the tape, or that her privacy right was not clearly established. Anderson v. Blake, No. 05-6329, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28144 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
     Arkansas state police did not violate the privacy rights of a state police investigator assigned to an embezzlement crime by conducting an examination of a complaint by one of two victims of the crime that the investigator had engaged in sexual relations with his wife, the other victim. Sylvester v. Fogley, No. 05-3492, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25750 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Dec]
     City was not liable for police officer's allegedly wrongful display of nude photographs of a female murder victim to persons not involved in the investigation. There was no showing that any official city policy or failure to adequately train officers caused the disclosure. Donohue v. Hoey, No. 02-1405, 109 Fed. Appx. 340 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Motorist asserted a claim for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, after police officer who pulled her over obtained private information from vehicle licensing records concerning her and her husband, allegedly without a permissible purpose for doing so, since he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to "run the plate" of the vehicle. Luparello v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 290 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
     Defendants who are not videotape service providers, such as law enforcement officers and agencies or prosecutors, could not be held liable under the Video Tape Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710 or the Tennessee Video Consumer Privacy Act, T.C.A. Sec. 47-18-2201 through 2205, for the disclosure and use of information relating to an individual's rentals of videotapes. Both statutes, in attempting to protect the privacy of those who rent videotapes from commercial businesses, do not provide for remedies against any persons who are not video service providers. Daniel v. Cantrell, 241 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
     $325,00 settlement reached in the first case brought under federal statute protecting the privacy of driver's license records. Trial court held that statute creates a private cause of action imposing vicarious liability on municipalities if employees or agents violate it with "apparent authority," and that possible plaintiffs include not only the driver, but also other family members sharing the same address who might be subjected to stalking or harassment. Margan v. Niles, 00-CV-1201, 250 F. Supp. 2d 63, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3971 (N.D.N.Y.). [2003 LR Sep] &  [2003 LR May]
      Sheriff's office did not violate the privacy rights of a 13-year-old girl when it issued a press release stating that she had engaged in consensual sex with an 18-year-old man whom she had met on the internet. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the statements she made to law enforcement officers and the press release was "substantially true," defeating any defamation claim. Loeks v. Reynolds, #01-1183, 34 Fed. Appx. 644 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
     Family of deceased former police sergeant had no claim for violation of the constitutional right to privacy or due process based on police lieutenant's ordering of autopsy and photographs of the decedent's body. His actions did not constitute a taking of property, and the surviving family was not deprived of their father's body, or prevented from disposing of it as they saw fit. Additionally, the body was not disturbed from a resting place. Helmer v. Middaugh, 191 F. Supp. 2d 283 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
    Police supervisor was entitled to qualified immunity for state trooper's alleged videotaping of female civilian who was serving as a model for a training video while she undressed in an office to prepare for her role. Poe v. Leonard, #00-9024, 282 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
     Decedent's family had no constitutionally protected privacy interest in preventing officer from making public statements containing information about his highly personal sexual behavior of an allegedly autoerotic nature, and were not entitled to a "name-clearing hearing." Livsey v. Salt Lake County, No. 00-4005, 275 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR May]
     City's purported failure to remove the arrestee's photo and arrest sheet from its records after they had been sealed under a criminal procedural rule did not violate his constitutional right to privacy. Crime victim's subsequent positive identification of plaintiff as the man who shot him based on viewing the photo gave the officers a "complete defense" to plaintiff's subsequent false arrest claim. Brown v. City of New York, 735 N.Y.S.2d 21 (A.D. 2001). [N/R]
     Officer's action in revealing an employee's criminal record to his employer in the course of investigating a theft at the workplace did not violate Massachusetts law concerning disclosure of criminal offender record information. Bellin v. Kelley, 755 N.E.2d 1274 (Mass. 2001). [N/R]
     345:139 Washington state trial court enjoins web site from publishing officers' Social Security numbers on- line, but refuses, on First Amendment grounds, to order it to remove officers' names, addresses, and information taken from public records. City of Kirkland v. Sheehan, No. 01-2- 09513-7 SEA, King County, Washington, Superior Court, May 10, 2001.
     EDITOR'S NOTE: In a separate case, King County v. Sheehan, 00-2-20170-2 SEA, King County Washington, Superior Court, on May 4, 2001, the county was ordered to pay this same website attorneys' fees of $13,716.55 in a case it brought seeking to enjoin the website from seeing personnel information about the sheriff's office it had requested under the state's freedom of information act.
     The court in the City of Kirkland case, in ruling that the publication of the officers' names and addresses on the web might be protected by the First Amendment relied on a recent ruling in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Williamette, Inc., v. American Coalition of Life Activists, #99-35320, 244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2001), in which a federal appeals court overturned, on First Amendment grounds, a judgment against persons operating a website which had listed personal information about abortion doctors and other supporters of abortion, some of whom had been attacked.
     337:10 Officer's alleged threat to tell 18-year-old man's grandfather that he was gay would have violated the constitutional right to privacy; federal appeals court rejects officer's motion for qualified immunity despite lack of specific prior caselaw on the subject, ruling that the general right to privacy was clearly established and covers all "intimate facts of a personal nature." Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, No. 99-1768, 232 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir. 2000).
     325:12 Former prisoner could not sue New York for alleged wrongful dissemination of his conviction record to his employer, causing his firing; fact of conviction was a public record, available to all, and there is no right to bring a lawsuit for damages under a state statute protecting privacy in individual information. Lawrence v. State, 688 N.Y.S.2d 392 (Ct. Cl. 1999).
     309:139 Failure of police department to return arrest photos to arrestee's attorney after charges were dismissed did not violate federally protected right to privacy, despite state statute mandating such return; city not liable for subsequent arrest and acquittal of plaintiff after robbery victim identified him from photo contained in mug book. Grandal v. City of New York, 966 F.Supp. 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
     290:27 Sheriff's alleged disclosure, to private citizen, of results of criminal records search of individual, did not violate the constitutional right to privacy Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176 (6th Cir. 1996).
     {N/R} Disclosure by officer and/or city that city auditor had once pled guilty to felony theft charge did not violate auditor's right to privacy, even if allegedly made to discredit his unfavorable audit of police department; auditor had no legitimate expectation of privacy on his criminal record despite subsequent expungement of record Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 1996).
     {N/R} Rape victim did show that officer violated a clearly established constitutional right to privacy by statements he made in the course of his investigation Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1996).
     271:107 Officer's discussion of expunged sexual abuse arrest and conviction during television broadcast did not violate school teacher's federal constitutional privacy rights; issue of whether or not it violated Utah state expungement statute was not determinative of federal civil rights claim Nilson v. Layton City, 45 F.3d 369 (10th Cir. 1995).
     268:51 Arrestee could sue arresting officer for releasing to others information that he was HIV positive, even though test results later turned out to be false ALA v. West Valley City, 26 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 1994).
     Deputy sheriff who obtained consumer credit bureau report on criminal suspect by requesting finance company employee to obtain it was not liable for violation of federal Fair Credit Reporting Act; deputy spelled out the purposes for which he sought the information, and therefore did not obtain it under "false pretenses" Allen v. Calvo, 832 F.Supp. 301 (D.Or 1993).
     Revealing female minor's deposition alleging sexual abuse by her father to town board, despite officers' promises that it would be kept confidential did not violate her federal constitutional right to privacy when town had a legitimate interest in it because her father was a town employee DiPalma v. Phelan, 81 NY 2d 754, 609 N.E.2d 131, 593 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1992).
     Police chief was not liable for breaking department's promise, to female minor sex crime victim, not to reveal her identity to anyone outside of criminal investigation Di Palma v. Phelan, 578 N.Y.S.2d 948 (A.D. 1992).
     Viewing by non-officers of videotape and photos of autopsy of fourteen year old boy did not constitute invasion of privacy, but boy's family could sue officers and city for infliction of emotional distress. Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So.2d 683 (Fla App. 1991).
     Government interest in disclosure of facts of crime outweighed privacy interest of estate and mother of stockbroker who apparently killed family and committed suicide McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 766 S.W.2d 909 (Ark 1989).
     FBI investigation of elementary school student who corresponded with foreign governments did not infringe first or fourth amendment rights or violate privacy act Patterson v. FBI, 705 F.Supp. 1033 (D.N.J. 1989).
     Woman claims officer offered to drop traffic charges if she would grant sexual favors; sues police chief for alleged improper investigation of her background Carbone v. Horner, 682 F.Supp. 824 (WD Penn 1988).
     No constitutional violation for police detective to remove "confidential" photograph from suspect's youthful offender file for use in unrelated investigation McCrary v. Jetter, 665 F.Supp. 182 (E.D.N.Y. 1987). Police chief not liable for failure to approve permit for topless dancing Bradfield v. Blesma, 675 F.Supp. 382 (WD Mich 1987).
     Forced entry to look for child was proper Duquette v. Godbout, 471 A.2d 1359 (RI 1984).
     Statute allows public disclosure of police reports Maloney v. Caffrey, 596 F.Supp. 1164 (D.Conn 1984).
     No liability to peace officer executing search warrant when news media entered building and was accused of trespassing Anderson v. WHEC-TV, 461 N.Y.S.2d 607 (App. 1983).
     Police officers executing warrant could be liable for trespass and assault and battery Kuykendall v. Turner, 301 S.E.2d 715 (N.C. App. 1983).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu