Dietemann v. Time, Inc.
449 F.2d 245 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press does not immunize reporters from liability for torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering, including the tort of invasion of privacy through surreptitious electronic surveillance in a private home.
Facts:
- A. L. Dietemann, a disabled veteran, was engaged in the practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs from his home.
- Dietemann's home was not open to the public; it had a locked gate and no signage indicating a business.
- Time, Inc., publisher of Life Magazine, entered into an arrangement with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office to investigate Dietemann.
- Two Life employees, Jackie Metcalf and William Ray, went to Dietemann's home and used a ruse, claiming to be referred by a friend, to gain entrance.
- Once inside Dietemann's den, Metcalf feigned a medical ailment, and during the subsequent 'examination,' Ray secretly photographed Dietemann with a hidden camera.
- Metcalf carried a purse with a hidden radio transmitter that broadcast the conversation to another Life employee and law enforcement officials in a nearby car.
- Life Magazine subsequently published an article entitled 'Crackdown on Quackery' that featured Dietemann and included one of the secretly taken photographs.
Procedural Posture:
- Dietemann filed a lawsuit against Time, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for invasion of privacy, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court, after a bench trial, entered a judgment in favor of Dietemann, awarding him $1,000 in general damages.
- Time, Inc. (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press immunize a publication from liability for invasion of privacy when its reporters gain access to a person's private home through subterfuge and secretly photograph and electronically transmit their conversation while gathering news?
Opinions:
Majority - Hufstedler
No. The First Amendment does not grant newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during newsgathering. The court held that Dietemann's den was a sphere where he could reasonably expect privacy from eavesdropping newsmen. While one who invites others into their home assumes the risk that they may repeat what they see and hear, they do not assume the risk of clandestine photography or electronic broadcast. The court explicitly stated that the First Amendment is not a license to trespass, steal, or intrude by electronic means into another's home or office, even if the subject is suspected of a crime. The tort of intrusion does not require publication, and therefore, First Amendment defenses related to publication, such as those in New York Times v. Sullivan, are not relevant to liability for the intrusive conduct itself.
Concurring - Carter
Judge Carter concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to argue that the court should have addressed the issue of Time's liability for its employees acting as agents of the police. He contended that even if the reporters' conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment (which restricts government action), a state is free to provide greater privacy protections and recognize a civil cause of action for such an intrusion. He argued that California law would likely allow such a claim to proceed against police agents, and since the issue was briefed and central to the case, the court should have decided it rather than accepting Time's disclaimer that its employees were not acting on behalf of the police.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical boundary for investigative journalism, clarifying that the First Amendment protects the publication of news but does not shield journalists from liability for tortious acts committed to obtain it. The decision strongly affirms the 'intrusion upon seclusion' branch of privacy torts, separating the act of newsgathering from the act of dissemination. By holding that illegal newsgathering methods can create liability regardless of the story's newsworthiness, this precedent forces news organizations to consider the legality of their methods, particularly the use of deception, hidden cameras, and microphones in private spaces. It stands for the principle that the press is not above the general laws that apply to all citizens.
