Howard v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co.
5 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1667, 1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1000, 283 N.W.2d 289 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common-law action for invasion of privacy based on giving unreasonable publicity to private facts is not actionable if the disclosed information is a matter of public record or is legitimately newsworthy as part of a report on a matter of public concern.
Facts:
- In 1970 or 1971, while a minor resident of the Jasper County Home, Robbin Howard (then known as Robin Woody) underwent an involuntary sterilization surgery.
- The fact of Robbin Howard's sterilization was not publicly known at the time it occurred.
- Myrle J. Corso, a nurse's aide at the Jasper County Home, observed and complained about conditions, including involuntary sterilizations, to Opal M. Snyder in 1971.
- Corso sent a written statement detailing her observations to various officials, including the Governor and defendant newspaper.
- Opal Snyder independently investigated the Jasper County Home, found county records of payment for plaintiff's surgery, and confirmed the sterilization through a hospital bookkeeper, then protested the sterilizations to various authorities.
- In July 1975, Opal Snyder provided Governor Ray with additional documentation, including a statement from former nurse's aide Collene Blakely, which explicitly identified 'Robin Woody' as an involuntary sterilization victim.
- Defendant Margaret Engel, a reporter for the Des Moines Register and Tribune Company, investigated the Jasper County Home's problems for two weeks in late 1975 and early 1976.
- During her investigation, Engel interviewed Opal Snyder, Collene Blakely, and Dr. Roy C. Sloan (the home's psychiatrist), all of whom confirmed Robbin Howard's sterilization and provided details.
- On February 15, 1976, the Des Moines Register and Tribune Company published an article by Margaret Engel, which detailed systemic issues at the Jasper County Home, including specific mention of Robin Woody's involuntary sterilization.
Procedural Posture:
- Robbin Howard initiated a lawsuit against Des Moines Register and Tribune Company, reporter Margaret Engel, and Dr. Roy C. Sloan for invasion of privacy, alleging unreasonable publicity of her involuntary sterilization.
- Defendants Des Moines Register and Tribune Company and Margaret Engel filed an answer denying the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses including constitutional protections, newsworthiness, public record, and waiver of privacy.
- Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, presenting affidavits and depositions to support their defenses.
- The trial court rejected the public record and waiver arguments but granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the newsworthiness of the disclosure.
- Robbin Howard appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
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 a newspaper's publication of a person's involuntary sterilization constitute an actionable invasion of privacy if the information was contained in public records or if the disclosure of the person's identity was legitimately newsworthy in the context of an investigative journalism piece about problems at a public institution?
Opinions:
Majority - McCormick, Justice
Yes, a newspaper's publication of a person's involuntary sterilization does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy in this case because the information was available in public records, and the disclosure of the person's identity was legitimately newsworthy. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, which requires that a publicized matter be both 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' and 'not of legitimate concern to the public' to be actionable. Regarding the 'public record' ground, the court found that documents provided to the Governor's office by Opal Snyder, identifying Robin Woody as a sterilization victim, became 'public records' under Iowa Code Chapter 68A (the Freedom of Information Act) upon acceptance by the Governor's office. These documents, along with the county auditor's records of payment for the surgery, were not exempt as 'medical records' because they were not compiled or maintained by medical personnel for diagnostic or treatment purposes. Citing Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the court held that the First Amendment mandates that there can be no recovery for accurate disclosure of information contained in public records, thus rendering the information in the public domain and not private. Regarding the 'newsworthiness' ground, the court determined that the article was a legitimate example of investigative journalism aiming to expose systemic problems and maladministration at the Jasper County Home. The disclosure of Robbin Howard's identity was 'closely related' to the article's newsworthy subject matter, providing specific, credible evidence that lent impact and understanding to the report. The court reasoned that naming names served to buttress the force of the evidence, helping to separate fact from rumor and strengthen public perception of a matter of grave public interest. It was not deemed 'a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake.' Thus, a reasonable person could not find the disclosure to be devoid of legitimate public concern.
Dissenting - Larson, Justice
No, the publication of Robbin Howard's sterilization could reasonably be found by a factfinder to improperly invade her privacy, and the underlying information should not be considered in the public domain. Justice Larson specifically dissented from the majority's conclusion regarding the 'public record' ground. He argued that even if the documents in the Governor's office and county auditor's records were generally accessible under the Freedom of Information Act, they should fall within the 'medical records' exception of Iowa Code § 68A.7(2). He contended that the exception should be interpreted broadly to cover records pertaining to 'condition, diagnosis, care or treatment,' irrespective of whether they were compiled or maintained by traditional medical personnel or institutions. He emphasized the strong policy consideration for protecting deeply personal and sensitive medical information, suggesting the majority's narrow interpretation of the exception undermined the spirit of privacy protection.
Concurring - Uhlenhopp, Justice
Yes, the trial court's summary judgment was correct regarding the newsworthiness defense. Justice Uhlenhopp concurred with the majority's reasoning in Division II (newsworthiness) and the final result. He expressed a desire to avoid chilling First Amendment rights through a restrictive application of newsworthiness. However, he declined to join Division I of the majority opinion regarding the 'public record' issue, believing that the question of whether unsolicited letters to public officials automatically become public records for tort purposes, especially when dealing with private affairs, involves significant privacy concerns that should be decided only when absolutely necessary in a future appeal.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - McGiverin, Justice
No, a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the publication of Robbin Howard's sterilization, particularly the disclosure of her identity, was truly newsworthy, making summary judgment on that ground inappropriate. Justice McGiverin concurred with the majority's ruling on the 'public record' ground and the overall result but dissented from Division II (newsworthiness). He agreed with the principle that courts shouldn't dictate what interests the community but argued that reasonable people could differ on whether revealing plaintiff's identity in a story about a 1970/1971 event, published in 1976, was genuinely newsworthy. He cited precedents suggesting that identifying individuals in reports of 'long past crimes' (by analogy, a past, discrete incident) often serves 'little independent public purpose.' Therefore, he believed that a jury, as the trier of fact, should have been allowed to apply the community standard and determine whether the identity disclosure was 'morbid and sensational prying into her life for its own sake.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the defenses available to media defendants in invasion of privacy claims, particularly those based on the public disclosure of private facts. By establishing that both public record and legitimate newsworthiness can preclude liability, the court provided substantial protection for investigative journalism concerning public institutions. The decision indicates a deferential stance towards editorial judgment, emphasizing that specific details and identities can bolster the credibility and impact of a newsworthy story. This precedent sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to restrict truthful reporting on matters of public interest, particularly when government oversight or institutional misconduct is involved, reinforcing the balance in favor of First Amendment press freedoms over individual privacy in such contexts.
