Jenkins v. Bolla
19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2059, 411 Pa. Super. 119, 600 A.2d 1293 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The publication of old criminal convictions, though they may have faded from public memory, does not constitute an invasion of privacy if there is a substantial nexus between the past crimes, the individual's current activities, and a legitimate public interest.
Facts:
- Jenkins operated a boarding home for mentally ill and mentally handicapped individuals.
- The home received patient referrals from state and county agencies and was subsidized by public funds.
- Jenkins had been convicted of criminal acts of a sexual nature in 1942, 1960, and 1973, and was also previously committed to a state hospital.
- A quasi-governmental committee was formed to supervise patient residences and adopted a standard to disapprove homes operated by anyone with a serious criminal conviction within the past ten years.
- Based on Jenkins' 1973 conviction, the committee disapproved his boarding home and recommended that state medical facilities no longer refer patients there.
- The Courier Times, through its reporter Mary Blakinger, published a series of articles about the boarding homes.
- The articles discussed the committee's decision based on the 1973 conviction but also revealed Jenkins' older 1942 and 1960 convictions and his prior commitment to Farview State Hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Jenkins (Plaintiff) filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against Blakinger and the Courier Times (Defendants) in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that Jenkins had failed to establish the elements of his claim as a matter of law.
- Jenkins (Appellant) appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
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 publication of decades-old criminal convictions and a mental health commitment, which are matters of public record, constitute an invasion of privacy for unreasonable publicity given to private life when the individual is currently operating a publicly-funded boarding home for mentally ill persons?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudock, Judge
No, the publication of the old convictions does not constitute an invasion of privacy. While the passage of time can cause a public record to fade into a private fact, it does not lose its protected status for publication if a compelling reason warrants maintaining public awareness. The court found that a 'substantial nexus' existed between Jenkins' past crimes, his current activity of operating a boarding home for a vulnerable population, and the public interest in the safety of these individuals and the use of public funds. Criminal convictions are public records, not private facts. Jenkins' ongoing record of sexual crimes spanning nearly forty years, combined with his current role caring for defenseless individuals, made his entire criminal history a matter of legitimate public concern, overriding any privacy interest he might have in his remote past.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'substantial nexus' test as a crucial framework for balancing an individual's right to privacy in their past against the public's right to know. It refines the 'publicity given to private life' tort by clarifying that even very old public records can be newsworthy if directly relevant to a person's current activities of public concern. The ruling provides significant protection to the media when reporting on the backgrounds of individuals in positions of public trust or responsibility, particularly when vulnerable populations or public funds are involved. It tempers the idea that 'once a public record, always a public record' by requiring a current connection to justify the republication of dated information.
