Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.WiredPatents.com PatentAttorney@WiredPatents.com
So: the adverse party is going to get every scrap of communication your client thought was private. Are you going to be able to keep it out of evidence?
(1890) Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' law review article, The Right to Privacy The right to privacy is "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. Privacy torts depend on an expectation of privacy. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, 383 (1960). Restatement (Second) of Torts 652D (1977). There are four Privacy torts: 1. Seclusion intrusion 2. Identity appropriation 3. Disclosure of secrets 4. False publicity
Thus, snooping can violate two types of tort laws: The snooping itself may intrude upon seclusion. Using the information obtained from snooping may be disclosure of secrets.
Trespass to chattels. Spousal Emotional Abuse; IIED; NIED; Alienation of Affections, Breach of Promise to Marry, and Related Torts; (the snooping itself).
Publication as a tort, independent of the intrusion tort. But: all divorces make facts public.
Other legal procedures for excluding evidence. Federal Rule civil procedure rule 26(c)
Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199, 203 (1952), overruled by Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378 (1968). Lee now prohibits local police from using evidence obtained by violating federal law.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA, 1986) Title I of ECPA re-created the Wiretap Act as 18 U.S.C. 2510 Title II of ECPA created the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701) Title III of ECPA is merely a list of exceptions, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i).
The Wiretap Act explicitly requires that wiretap evidence be excluded from evidence in civil litigation. Texass wiretapping statute. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 16.02; Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 18.20
But: The Wiretap Act is notorious for its vagueness. Case law has applied the Wiretap Act only to: real-time interception of aural communications (i.e., not security-camera photos) using an instrumentality of interstate commerce without consent (consent may be inferred, and is sometimes vicarious) - If any one party consents, recording is legal. in states that do not have a marital exception (some courts infer Congl reluctance to regulate domestic matters, which are best left to states). Does not ever include stored voicemail. 18 U.S.C. 2510(1) (2001) What about VoIP?
Some cases: US v. Turk, 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. en banc 1976); Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. US Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Moriarity, 962 F. Supp. 217, 220-21 (D. Mass. 1997). Fraser, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623 ("The common meaning of 'intercept' is 'to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course before arrival.); United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572, 581-83 (D.N.J. 2001); United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003) a contemporaneous interception -- i.e., an acquisition during flight' -- is required to implicate the Wiretap Act with respect to electronic communications. Also, In re Doubleclick, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497, 511-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1974); Farr 940 P.2d 679 (Wa. Ct. App. 1997); Heggy v. Heggy, 944 F.2d 1537 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 503 U.S. 951 (1992); Robinson v. Robinson, 499 So.2d 152 (La. Ct. App. 1986); Heyman v. Heyman, 548 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ill. 1982); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2nd Cir. 1977); London v. London, 420 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Schieb; Newcomb, 944 F.2d at 1536; and Anonymous, 558 F.2d at 679.
Pritchard v. Pritchard, 732 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1984); Kratz v. Kratz, 477 F. Supp. 463 (E.D. Pa. 1979); USA v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1976); Turner v. P.V. Int'l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988); People v. Otto, 831 P.2d 1178 (Ca. 1992); Kempf v. Kempf , 868 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1989); Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Ct. App. 1995); Platt v. Platt, 951 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1989); Ransom v. Ransom, 324 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. 1985); and Markham v. Markham, 272 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1973)
Vicarious Consent
Consent may be inferred from joint ownership of the computer. Vicarious consent allows a custodial parent to record the childs conversations, if the court believe the reason for the wiretap was the childs welfare or best interests. Issues: (2) recorded conversation includes CPS, an attorney, or a counselor? (1) recording is done inside non-custodial parents home? and (2) joint custody?
Granted summary judgment to custodial parents who recorded minor children's telephone conversations with non-custodial parents:
Thompson v. Dulaney, 970 F.2d 744, 748 (10th Cir. 1992) ; Pollock v. Pollock, 975 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Ken. 1997); Silas v. Silas, 680 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); Cacciarelli v. Boniface 737 A.2d 1170 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Ch. Div. 1999); Campbell v. Price, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (E.D. Ark. 1998); and State v. Diaz, 706 A.2d 264 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)
Texas: Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 18.20 (West Supp. 1999).
Every state except Vermont has a state-law wiretapping statute.
18 U.S.C. 2510-2522 (1994); Ala. Code 13A-11-31 (1994); Alaska Stat. 42.20.310 (Michie 1998); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-3005 (West 1989); Ark. Code Ann. 5-60-120 (Michie 1997); Cal. Penal Code 632 (West 1988 & Supp. 1998); Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-9-303 (1997); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 53a189 (West 1994); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 1336 (1995); D.C. Code Ann. 23-542 (1996); Fla. Stat. Ann. 934.03 (West 1996 & Supp. 1999); Ga. Code Ann. 16-11-62 (1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-42 (1993); Idaho Code 18- 6701 (1997); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/14-2 (West 1993); Ind. Code Ann. 35-33.55-5 (Michie 1998); Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4002 (1995); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 526.020 (Banks-Baldwin 1995); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 15:1303 (West 1992); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, 710 (West 1980 & Supp. 1998); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 (1998); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, 99(c)(1) (Law. Co-op. 1992); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 750.539c (West 1991); Minn. Stat. Ann. 626A.02 (West 1983 & Supp. 1999); Miss. Code Ann. 41-29-533 (1993 & Supp. 1998); Mo. Ann. Stat. 542-402 (Supp. 1998); Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 (1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-702 (1994); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 200.620 (Michie 1997); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 (1986 & Supp. 1998); N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A3 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998); N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 (Michie 1997); N.Y. Penal Law 250.05 (Consol. 1989); N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-287 (1997); N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2933.52 (Banks-Baldwin 1997); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, 176.3 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999); Or. Rev. Stat. 165.543 (1997); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 5703 (West 1983 & Supp. 1998); R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21 (1994); S.C. Code Ann. 16-17-470 (Law. Co-op. 1985 & Supp. 1997); S.D. Codified Laws 23A-35A-20 (Michie 1998); Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-601 (1997); Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 18.20 (West Supp. 1999); Utah Code Ann. 76-9-403 (1995); Va. Code Ann. 19.2-62 (Michie 1995); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 9.73.030 (West 1998); W. Va. Code 62-1D-3 (1997); Wis. Stat. Ann. 968.31 (West 1998); Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-3-602 (Michie 1997).
Using the Stored Communications Act (ECPA Title II) to exclude evidence
More importantly, evidentiary exclusion is not among the remedies. civil damages under 2707 criminal prosecution under 2701(b) incarceration up to two years but no exclusion from evidence. 2518(10)(c). 2707's civil cause of action and 2701(b)'s criminal penalties 'are the only judicial remedies and sanctions. 2708, entitled 'Exclusivity of Remedies Court orders are easier to obtain than for wiretaps, but the court may (not shall) award damages of only $1000, not $10,000 as for wiretap. Note that the PATRIOT Act amendments make voicemail into the legal equivalent of email.
Also: immunizes switchboard operators, agents of communications service providers, and some governmental employees, who get information as part of their jobs.
If Congress had meant to let spouses snoop, Congress might have said so here. But spouses are not listed among the exceptions. But: Congress may have omitted spouses because Congress wanted to defer to states.
European Perspective
The evidence produced by snooping would probably be easier to exclude in Europe. The European Unions Directive 95/46/EC of 1995: Whereas data-processing systems are designed to serve man; whereas they must, whatever the nationality or residence of national persons, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms, notable the right to privacy,
Summary
Common law privacy torts are not strong enough to keep evidence out, since (1) inter-spousal (and therefore not commonly entertained), (2) intent may be negated by subjective belief in consent arising from the relationship, and (3) expectation of privacy might not be reasonable, due to societal changes. may regulate even silent surveillance, and thus even emails and voicemails, under either privacy or publication torts. The tort is particularly actionable if there is any attempt to segregate email accounts by the use of passwords.
Summary
Federal Wiretap Act (and Texas tracks the federal statute) protects only real-time interception of aural communications using an instrumentality of interstate commerce without consent in circuits that do not impose a marital exception. Minority of states allow surreptitious recording of spouse on marital home phone. Most states allow parents to record minor children on extension phone. Some states allow vicarious consent for best interest of child, except that third party (party to conversation) may object; also, joint custody makes vicarious consent nonsense. Stored Communications Acts regulate email and voicemail, but allow evidence since such recordings are not in electronic storage (as that phrase is interpreted legally). Remedies for these violations must be found outside of evidentiary exclusion (even illegally obtained evidence would thus be admissible).
any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce [removed by 2002 amendment: and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication][removed by 1994 amendment: , but such term does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit].