Miller v. Nat’l Broad Co. - 187 Cal. App. 3d 1463, 232 Cal. Rptr. 668 (1986)

Rule:

News gathering, as well as news dissemination, is within the protective ambit of the U.S. Const., 1st Amend. Without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated. The protection, however, is limited rather than absolute; the publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws and has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of news gathering.

Facts:

On the night of October 30, 1979, a National Broadcasting Channel (“NBC”) television camera crew entered the apartment of Dave and Brownie Miller in Los Angeles, without their consent, to film the activities of Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics called to the Miller home to administer life-saving techniques to Dave Miller, who had suffered a heart attack in his bedroom. The paramedics were unable to successfully resuscitate Dave Miller; he died that October evening at Mount Sinai Hospital. The NBC television camera crew not only filmed the paramedics' attempts to assist Miller, but NBC used the film on its nightly news without obtaining anyone's consent. His widow, Brownie, and daughter, Marlene, brought suit against defendants NBC, doing business as KNBC, Ruben Norte (Norte), the NBC producer in charge of the minidocumentary, and the City of Los Angeles (City) for damages, alleging trespass, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress against all defendants. However, after it had received complaints from both Brownie Miller and her daughter, Marlene Miller Belloni, NBC later used portions of the film in a commercial advertising an NBC "mini-documentary" about the paramedics' work. After considerable discovery and amendment of pleadings, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. 

Issue:

Are the defendants precluded from liability by virtue of NBC’s constitutionally recognized and protected First Amendment right to gather news?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ." The protection afforded the disseminators of the news, be they reporters, broadcasters or television newspersons, has been perceived throughout our history as of the utmost importance in maintaining a free society. The protection extended not only to prohibit direct state action, but must be considered when any private citizen seeks to impose civil liability for invasion of privacy by the press or media through access to state courts. However, the protection was limited, rather than absolute. Implicit in other decisions upholding newsgatherers' access to public records assumed that the newsgathering activity was lawful, rather than unlawful. Nicholson noted that the protection extended for newsgatheringdoes not mandate "that the press and its representatives are immune from liability for crimes and torts committed in news gathering activities simply because the ultimate goal is to obtain publishable material. The obligation not to make unauthorized entry into the private premises of individuals like the Millers did not place an impermissible burden on newsgatherers, nor was it likely to have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. To hold otherwise might have extraordinarily chilling implications for all of us; instead of a zone of privacy protecting our secluded moments, a climate of fear might surround us instead. Others besides the media have rights, and those rights prevail when they are considered in the context of the events at the Miller home on October 30, 1979.