Koeppel v. Speirs
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 106, 808 N.W.2d 177, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 389 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a defendant places a surveillance device in a private area that is capable of invading the plaintiff's privacy, regardless of whether there is proof the defendant actually viewed or recorded the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Robert Speirs, an insurance agent, employed Sara Koeppel and Deanna Miller in his Waterloo office, which contained a unisex bathroom.
- Suspecting an employee of misconduct, Speirs purchased a hidden camera system in November 2005.
- Speirs first installed the camera in the reception area for ten days to monitor Miller but observed no misconduct and removed it.
- On December 26, 2005, after finding a hypodermic needle in the parking lot, Speirs installed the battery-powered camera inside the hollow base of a shelf in the office bathroom, with the camera angle pointing towards the toilet.
- Speirs claimed the equipment did not work in the bathroom, producing only static, and that he unhooked the monitor but left the camera in place.
- The next day, Koeppel discovered the camera and reported it to the police.
- The police found the camera's battery was dead but, after replacing it, were able to produce a brief, 'snowy, grainy, foggy' image from the bathroom on the monitor.
Procedural Posture:
- Sara Koeppel sued Robert Speirs in Iowa district court for invasion of privacy and sexual harassment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Speirs on the sexual harassment claim.
- Speirs then moved for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, arguing the camera was not functional.
- The district court granted Speirs' motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the tort required an actual, not merely attempted, intrusion.
- Koeppel, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment rulings to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim but reversed the summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, finding sufficient evidence for the claim to proceed to trial.
- Speirs, as appellant, sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa solely on the invasion of privacy issue.
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 secret installation of surveillance equipment in a private place constitute an invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion, even if there is no proof that the equipment actually recorded or transmitted images of the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Cady, Chief Justice.
Yes, the secret installation of surveillance equipment in a private place can constitute an invasion of privacy even without proof of actual viewing or recording. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion protects against acts that interfere with a person's mental well-being by placing mechanisms capable of exposing them in a private place. Requiring proof of actual viewing would be difficult for plaintiffs to obtain and would allow perpetrators to evade liability by simply disabling the device upon discovery. The harm occurs when the plaintiff discovers the device and reasonably believes their privacy could have been invaded, causing mental suffering and destroying their peace of mind. Therefore, the intrusion element is satisfied if the plaintiff proves the device could have invaded their privacy. In this case, because the camera had worked previously and police were able to get an image from it, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude it was capable of invading Koeppel's privacy.
Analysis:
This decision adopts the majority jurisdictional view on intrusion upon seclusion claims involving electronic surveillance. It lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs by focusing on the defendant's conduct and the device's potential, rather than requiring proof of actual viewing or recording. The ruling establishes that the harm is the offensive installation of a potentially functional device itself, which infringes upon the victim's right to be let alone and causes emotional distress upon discovery. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for defendants in such cases to obtain summary judgment by claiming a device was inoperable or unused at the moment of discovery.
