Presentation on theme: "What is Invasion of Privacy?What is Invasion of Privacy? The Law for Business and Personal Use Textbook states that invasion of privacy is a tort that."— Presentation transcript:
What is Invasion of Privacy?What is Invasion of Privacy? The Law for Business and Personal Use Textbook states that invasion of privacy is a tort that is defined as the uninvited intrusion into an individual’s personal relationships and activities in a way likely to cause shame or mental suffering in an ordinary person. An invasion of privacy also can result from unnecessary publicity regarding personal matters. According to Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary invasion of privacy is a legal claim that another person or business has illegally used someone's likeness or unjustifiably intruded into that person's personal affairs.
Examples of Invasion of PrivacyExamples of Invasion of Privacy Someone's likeness for commercial advantage Ex: Falsely claiming that a particular person has endorsed a product. Public disclosure of private facts Ex: That a person has a particular disease or has had an affair. Putting someone in a false light to the public Ex: Publicizing false information that someone was arrested or said something inflammatory. Intrusion into someone's private affairs Ex: Secretly eavesdropping on someone's phone conversations.
Constitutional SignificanceConstitutional Significance The right to an individuals privacy is protected by the 4 th amendment of the constitution. The fourth amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In order to search an individuals property, a warrant is required. Definition of a warrant: a legal document authorizing law enforcement to search a particular person or place, authorized by a court or judge. Constitutional SignificanceConstitutional Significance
Steps in obtaining a warrant: 1.There must be probable cause or suspicion. Past criminal records, erratic behavior, informant. 2.The officers must make an oath and a truthful statement. The officer is willing to put his or her job on the line. 3.There must be specificity. Specific to what you need to search, specific and detailed in nature. 4.The warrant must be approved by a judge. Constitutional SignificanceConstitutional Significance
Exceptions for needing a warrant: i.There must be consent, if the person who you are searching gives you permission to search them or their property, you are granted to search them without a warrant. ii.If the danger is “in plain view”, there is certainty instead of probable cause. iii.If there is hot pursuit, clear and present dangers. iv.Automobile search; searching cars, reasonable suspicion, lower standard of probable cause. v.In school searches; searching school population, reasonable suspicion, lower standard of probable cause. vi.Border searches; all vehicles are required to be searched, personal searches help insure that there is no identification fraud and that they are not carrying any illegal substances. Constitutional SignificanceConstitutional Significance
New Jersey Laws and Degrees New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-9 Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges 2C:14-9. Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges A. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. B. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. C. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.
New Jersey LawsNew Jersey Laws D. It is an affirmative defense to a crime under this section that: 1) the actor posted or otherwise provided prior notice to the person of the actor's intent to engage in the conduct specified in subsection a., b., or c., and 2) the actor acted with a lawful purpose. E. (1) It shall not be a violation of subsection a. or b. to observe another person in the access way, foyer or entrance to a fitting room or dressing room operated by a retail establishment or to photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image of such person, if the actor conspicuously posts at the entrance to the fitting room or dressing room prior notice of his intent to make the observations, photographs, films, videotapes, recordings or other reproductions. 2) It shall be a violation of subsection c. to disclose in any manner any such photograph, film, videotape or recording of another person using a fitting room or dressing room except under the following circumstances: a. to law enforcement officers in connection with a criminal prosecution; b. pursuant to subpoena or court order for use in a legal proceeding; or c. to a co-worker, manager or supervisor acting within the scope of his employment.
F. It shall be a violation of subsection a. or b. to observe another person in a private dressing stall of a fitting room or dressing room operated by a retail establishment or to photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image of another person in a private dressing stall of a fitting room or dressing room. G. For purposes of this act, a law enforcement officer, or a corrections officer or guard in a correctional facility or jail, who is engaged in the official performance of his duties shall be deemed to be licensed or privileged to make and to disclose observations, photographs, films, videotapes, recordings or any other reproductions. H. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provisions of law, a conviction arising under subsection b. of this section shall not merge with a conviction under subsection c. of this section, nor shall a conviction under subsection c. merge with a conviction under subsection b. New Jersey LawsNew Jersey Laws
Cases Boyd v. United States In this case, federal customs agents confiscated from the defendants under suspicion that specific documents had been falsified to avoid having to comply by custom duties and pay customs fees. The documents were demanded by the government in order to prove and support their suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protected the defendant as it denied the right for the government to receive these private papers because the Fourth Amendment protects against the invasion into a person’s privacy and would not allow the government to force a person to produce private papers through a subpoena, as it is classified as an invasion of privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut In this case, Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception in the state of Connecticut. In CT, a law was passed in 1879 stating that the use of any drugs, or medical pills to prevent contraception was illegal, and Griswold had advised to a couple to use birth control pills to prevent getting pregnant. They appealed and US Supreme Court ruled that the state’s rule to ban the use of contraceptives was illegal and violated the right to marital privacy. The court sided with Griswold as she had to right to privacy. Katz v. United States In this case, the petitioner “Katz” used a public telephone booth to transmit wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami in violation of federal law. After undergoing surveillance, the FBI placed a listening device to the top of the telephone booth and recorded the petitioner’s end of the telephone conversations which was then used as evidence against him at his trial. Katz appealed to have the evidence suppressed and not used under his Fourth Amendment right saying that he had the right to privacy. The Court of Appeals denied the dispute and ruled that the evidence can be used. Even in a public place, an individual has a right to privacy but to a certain extent where in this case, the government’s surveillance was legal.
Case BriefCase Brief New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi Dharun Ravi 20/20 Episode
Facts Ex-student of Rutgers University, defendant Dharun Ravi was convicted of 15 counts of invasion of privacy. Ravi had been accused of spying on his roommate, Tyler Clementi while he was having sexual interactions with another man. Ravi had posted several posts on his Twitter and had texted a few of his friends, telling them about what he had saw. A few days later, Tyler Clementi committed suicide and jumped off the George Washington bridge.
Issue of LawIssue of Law The issue of law in this case is whether Tyler Clementi’s entitled right to privacy was violated by Dharun Ravi and whether Ravi’s actions had the intent to impact Clementi in such a way to kill himself and whether his actions consisted of a hate crime.
Decision Dharun Ravi was held on 15 counts and was found guilty of invading the privacy of his Rutgers University roommate, Tyler Clementi, by using a webcam to remotely spy on an intimate relationship between Clementi and another man. He was also found guilty with witness tampering, hindering apprehension and tampering with evidence, and guilty of bias intimidation.
Decision COUNT 1 4 th Degree Invasion of Privacy = GUILTY (related to Clementi) 4 th Degree Invasion of Privacy = GUILTY (related to Clementi’s guest) COUNT 2 3rd Degree Bias Intimidation - Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Clementi to be intimidated, as Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY COUNT 3 3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY 3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B (guest): GUILTY (Activated webcam so other people could view Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact on Sept 19.) COUNT 4 2nd Degree Bias Intimidation, Invasion of Privacy - Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY COUNT 5 4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY 4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY (Tried to observe Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 21) COUNT 6 3rd Degree Bias Intimidation, Invasion of Privacy - under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY (UNDER 3 OFFENSES) COUNT 7 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
Decision COUNT 8 2nd Degree Bias Intimidation Invasion of Privacy - under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY (UNDER 3 OFFENSES) COUNT 9 4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY (Deleted tweets relevant to police investigation COUNT 10 4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY (Wrote and posted a false tweet) COUNT 11 3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY (Destroyed evidence relevant to investigation) COUNT 12 3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY (Prevented a witness from providing testimony) COUNT 13 3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY (Lied to police) COUNT 14 3rd Degree Witness Tampering: GUILTY (Tried to influence what Molly Wei told police) COUNT 15 4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY (Deleted text messages sent to and received from witnesses)
Dharun Ravi was found guilty for the following actions of invading his Rutgers roommate Tyler Clementi’s privacy to the 2 nd, 3 rd, and 4 th degree; guilty of 2 nd and 3 rd degree of bias intimidation, and in addition to tampering with physical evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension/prosecution. He was charged and held guilty on these counts because of the fact that he used a webcam to spy on his roommate participating in sexual activity with another man thus supporting the verdict of having Ravi found guilty of invasion of privacy to Clementi and his guest as well. He also invited others to join and watch the activity through his twitter posts therefore showing intent and also causing bias intimidation towards Clementi as he felt he was being targeted because of his sexual preference. Although Ravi was not charged with hate/bias crimes towards gays, he was charged with intimidation as that was how Clementi had felt through the circumstances and Ravi’s actions. He was also charged with witness and evidence tampering as he deleted text messages between himself and Clementi, deleted tweets related to the investigation, wrote and posted a false tweet, and tried to sway the story of the witness Molly Wei. Next, he was charged with hindering apprehension and prosecution to the 3 rd degree because of his decisions to lie to the police and prevent a witness from testifying in the case. Therefore, after careful deliberation and analysis, Dharun Ravi was found guilty for these multiple accounts of invading the privacy of his roommate Tyler Clementi, who committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after the following incidents initiated by Ravi in September 2010. Reason
Sources "Boyd v. United States." Casebriefs.com. Casebriefs LLC, n.d. Web. 9 June 2012.. Cornell, University. "Invasion of Privacy." LII. Cornell Law, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 June 2012.. DeMarco, Megan. "Dharun Ravi Found Guilty in Rutgers Webcam Spying Trial." The Star-Ledger. Nj.com, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 June 2012.. New, Jersey. "New Jersey Lawyer." NJ vs. Dharun Ravi's Jury (Rutger's Spycam/Tyler Clementi) Overview. New Jersey Es, 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 June 2012.. Onecle. "New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-9 Invasion of Privacy, Degree of Crime; Defenses, Privileges." - New Jersey Attorney Resources. N.p., 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 June 2012.. PEARLE, LAUREN. "Dharun Ravi Trial: The Breakdown." ABC News. ABC News Network, 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 June 2012.. Sachs, Louis. "Invasion of Privacy." Samsachs. N.p., n.d. Web..