IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JEFFREY CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WTBC and JOHNNY BRAVO,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 15-000-00

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS WTBC AND JOHNNY

BRAVOS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
Defendants WTBC and Johnny Bravo submit this memorandum of law in support of
defendants motion for summary judgment.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Does the First Amendment protect the radio station and radio announcer who
played the newsworthy tape of a conversation between the plaintiff and his underage
intern in which he encouraged the intern to engage in drinking of alcoholic beverages and
intimate sexual relations or risk the loss of her job?
FACTS:
Senator, Jeffrey Campbell was intoxicated one night and called his intern
Stephanie Mordola, who was under the legal drinking age. He invited her over late at
11:00 pm at night to go over to his house and even offered to pick her up. He sounded as
if he wanted to have sexual relations with his underage intern and told her that he had
wine, vodka, and whiskey, although he knew she was underage. She said that she was not
interested in what he was saying and that he was not in any kind of state to drive. Senator
Campbell acted inappropriately by threatening to fire her if she did not go over to his
house. An unknown person picked up the signal on a frequency scanner and sent it to the
local radio station called WTBC; the radio announcer Johnny Bravo played the recording
on air. Senator Campbell filed a lawsuit to sue the radio station for playing the taped
conversation. The conversation was heard by thousands of people and Senator Campbell
lost a lot of his popularity in his pending Florida election.

ARGUMENT:
The First Amendment makes the wiretapping statutes unenforceable against
members of the press because the substance of the conversation was a matter of public
concern; therefore, the judge should grant the defendants motion for summary judgment.
The First Amendment guarantees that the public is informed about newsworthy
events and guarantees a free society by encouraging discussion of issues affecting the
public. Citizens have the right to be informed about the activities of political officials or
those who have the potential to be voted into office. An official engaging in inappropriate
or illegal acts should be of public concern. Political officials should be held to a higher
standard because of their influential positions and set good examples. The court will find
that the following case and statutes are useful in looking to see if summary judgment is
warranted: Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001); 934.02(1), 934.03(1), 934.10 Fla.
Stat. (2014), US Const. amend. I.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: Congress shall
make no law abridging the freedom of the press. If the press were to exercise their
First Amendment right, it would be admissible under freedom of speech. The United
States Constitution contains the clearly written rights of all individuals and to bar
someone from speaking would infringe upon their rights.
One statute the court should review is 934.02(1) it states, Wire
communication means any aural transfer made in whole or in part by the aid of wire
between the point of origin and the point of reception. Wire communication is spoken
words being transferred by means of a wire, such as talking on a phone to someone.
Section 934.02 (1) applies to Campbell because their communication occurred through a
through the aid of a wire.
Another vital statute that the court should review is 934.03(1), the potentially
relevant portion of the statute provides:
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person
who:
(a) Intentionally intercepts any wire communication [or]
.
(c) Intentionally discloses to any other person the contents of any
wire communication, knowing or having reason to know that the

information was obtained through the interception of a wire

communication in violation of this subsection;
.
Shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).
The statute translates to, except as otherwise stated, one who deliberately tapes a
private conversation commits a third degree felony because the recording was illegally
obtained and disclosed. The first potentially relevant portion of the statute does not apply
to Campbell because the WTBC and Johnny Bravo did not intercept the communication
themselves. The second potentially relevant portion of 934.03 (1) does not apply to
Campbell because if it did then the radio stations first amendment rights granted by the
United States Constitution would be infringed upon.
The final statute the court should look to is 934.10, which is not enforceable
against the radio station or the announcer for violating section 934.03(1) because the First
Amendment protects the press playing a conversation that was of public concern and the
interception was not done by the radio station or Johnny Bravo.
The court will review a case with similar facts, Bartnicki v. Vopper. In Bartnicki
an unknown person intercepted and recorded a telephone call between a union
representing teachers at a Pennsylvania high school and the local school board. The
conversation included a violent threat made by Bartnicki if the demands of the union
were not met. The parties entered and accepted a nonbinding arbitration that favored the
teachers. Vopper, a radio commentator, played the intercepted recording between the
union representing teachers and the school board on his talk show. Vopper did not partake
in the recording of the conversation nor did he know who was responsible but simply
acquired the recording legally. 532 U.S. at 518-19. The Supreme Court held:
Nevertheless, having considered the interests at stake, we are firmly convinced that the
disclosures made by respondents in this suit are protected by the First Amendment. Id. at
518.
Campbell is similar to Bartnicki because each case had an unknown person
sending in a tape recording that contained information of public concern. In each case the
radio commentators did not violate any statutes because they did not do the recording
themselves. In both cases the radio commentators were exercising their First Amendment
rights when they chose to play the tape recording on air.
In conclusion, Bartnicki is controlling on Campbell because the relevant facts of
the two cases are very similar. In each case, the taped telephone conversation was a
matter of public concern and the defendants had played no part in the illegal interception.

Section 934.02(1) applies because there was an aural communication transmitted by wire
between a point of origin and point of reception. The first portion of section 934.03(1)
applies to the anonymous person who taped the conversation. Section 934.10 is not
enforceable against the radio station or the announcer for violating section 934.03(1)
because the First Amendment protects the press playing a conversation that was of public
concern. Therefore, the judge should grant the defendants motion for summary
judgment.
For the reasons set forth, defendants WTBC and Johnny Bravo request the court to grant
their motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the lawsuit.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Tatiana Zuniga, Esq.
Florida Bar Number 500000
Law Firm
Main Street
Anytown, Fla.