Assignment:
EISENHAUER, P. J.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS [Sara] Koeppel and Deanna Miller were the only employees of Speirs, an insurance agent. A small (4' x 7') bathroom with a sink and toilet is located in the office. On December 27, 2005, Koeppel discovered a digital surveillance camera hidden inside the office bathroom. After contacting the Waterloo Police Department, a search warrant was obtained and officers located the camera in the bathroom. The camera was positioned to view the toilet and surrounding area. When confronted by police, Speirs produced the receiver and monitor for the camera from a locked drawer in his desk. When questioned about the presence of the camera, Speirs admitted he had placed it in the bathroom on December 26, 2005, and stated he did so because he suspected one of his employees was abusing drugs while at work and was concerned she would embezzle money. Speirs claimed he was unable to get a signal from the camera when it was in the bathroom. At the time the officers arrived, the surveillance system was not set up to receive images from the camera.
However, setup could be completed by plugging the equipment found in Speirs's desk drawer into an electrical outlet. After connecting the equipment, the officers tested it and found it did not work. Speirs told the officers the camera battery was likely dead. After changing the battery at Speirs's suggestion, a fuzzy picture of the toilet seat and bathroom wall was visible. The image would cut in and out every few seconds. Videotapes located in Speirs's office were blank. Speirs purchased the camera on November 26, 2005. Miller told the police, when interviewed on December 28, she saw the camera in the bathroom on November 28, 2005. Speirs, in another proceeding, testified he used the camera to monitor Miller at her desk on December 10, 2005, and in seven or ten viewings, he observed no wrongdoing.
Koeppel [sued] Speirs, alleging invasion of privacy Speirs then filed a motion for summary judgment claiming there was no actual intrusion upon Koeppel's privacy because there is no evidence he viewed her in the restroom. Koeppel [argued] Speirs's act of placing the camera in the bathroom with the intent to view her was an invasion of her privacy. She also argued there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the camera was operational. The district court entered its ruling, granting Speirs's motion. The court agreed Speirs intended to view Koeppel while she was in the bathroom, but concluded Koeppel could only be liable for an actual intrusion on her privacy, not an attempted intrusion. Finding no evidence Speirs viewed Koeppel in the bathroom, the court dismissed the claim. On November 25, 2008, Koeppel appealed.
III. INVASION OF PRIVACY
Koeppel first contends the court erred in granting summary judgment on her invasion of privacy claim. She contends Speirs's act of placing a camera in the bathroom with the intent to view her is sufficient to support a cause of action for invasion of privacy. In the alternative, she contends there is a question of fact as to whether there was an actual intrusion into her privacy Iowa has adopted the tort of invasion of privacy, as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which provides the right to privacy can be invaded by "unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another." Under this theory, [o]ne who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person upon. There is also evidence the camera was in the bathroom earlier in November.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Speirs on this claim.
Questions
1. At trial, how could Speirs be found liable for invasion of privacy if the bathroom camera was not operating? Explain.
2. The court in Koeppel cited an additional case involving the following facts: The director of a nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children learned that someone was accessing pornographic websites late at night from a facility office computer located in an enclosed office. The two employees stationed in that office performed clerical work during normal business hours and were not suspected. Without telling them, the director installed a hidden camera in the office, trained on the computer in question. The camera did not operate during the day. After discovering the camera, the employees sued for invasion of privacy.
a. How might this case support the court's decision in Koeppel?
b. Decide. Explain. See Hernandez v. Hillsides, 47 Cal. 4th 272 (Cal. 2010).
3. Young was the pastor of Ft. Caroline United Methodist Church in Florida. Young was provided with a private office and a computer in that office. The computer was not networked to any other computers. Young and the church administrator had keys to the office. No one was permitted in the office without Young's permission, and the church administrator was not permitted to log on to the computer unless Young was present.
The church administrator received notice from the church's Internet service provider that spam was linked to the church's Internet address. The administrator ran a "spybot" program on the church computers and found questionable Web addresses. The church's district supervisor and bishop were contacted and permission was given to involve police officials. Officers came to the church, the administrator unlocked Young's office and signed "consent to search" forms for the office and the computer. Officers searched the office and computer and found proscribed images and websites. Young subsequently filed a trial court motion to suppress the evidence gained from the office and computer search. The trial judge granted that motion ruling that the search violated Young's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The state appealed. Rule on that appeal. See State v. Young, 974 So.2d 601 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2008).