Dietemann v. Time, Inc. - 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)

Rule:

No interest protected by the First Amendment is adversely affected by permitting damages for intrusion to be enhanced by the fact of later publication of the information that the publisher improperly acquired. Assessing damages for the additional emotional distress suffered by a plaintiff when the wrongfully acquired data are purveyed to the multitude chills intrusive acts. It does not chill freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. A rule forbidding the use of publication as an ingredient of damages would deny to the injured plaintiff recovery for real harm done to him without any countervailing benefit to the legitimate interest of the public in being informed. The same rule would encourage conduct by news media that grossly offends ordinary men.

Facts:

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for invasion of privacy based on the publication by defendant of plaintiff's picture, gained by subterfuge and taken without his consent in his home. The district court held that defendant's actions were an invasion of plaintiff's privacy under California law and under the U.S. Constitution for which he was entitled to damages. The district court awarded $ 1,000 general damages for injury to plaintiff's feelings and peace of mind. Defendant appealed the decision. 

Issue:

1. Under California law, was a cause of action for invasion of privacy established upon proof that defendant's employees, by subterfuge, gained entrance to the office portion of plaintiff's home wherein they photographed him and electronically recorded and transmitted to third persons his conversation without his consent as a result of which he suffered emotional distress?
2. Did the First Amendment insulate defendant from liability for invasion of privacy because defendant's employees did those acts for the purpose of gathering material for a magazine story? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the district court's decision and held that plaintiff proved a cause of action under California law. Moreover, the court held that the First Amendment did not immunize defendant from liability for invading plaintiff's home with a hidden camera and its concealed electronic instruments even though its employees were gathering news and that, as claimed by defendant, its instrumentalities were indispensable tools of investigative reporting.