Miller v. Brooks
1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 577, 472 S.E.2d 350, 123 N.C. App. 20 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
North Carolina recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, which occurs when one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude, seclusion, or private affairs of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Terry Miller purchased a lot and built a house, with the property titled solely in his name.
- Terry Miller married defendant Annette K. Miller, and they lived in the house together.
- The couple separated, and Annette Miller moved out. They executed a separation agreement granting Terry Miller sole possession of the house.
- After a brief, failed reconciliation attempt, Annette Miller moved out again, returned her key, and the couple orally agreed that Terry Miller would have exclusive possession of the home.
- Annette Miller hired defendant Gregory Brooks, a private investigator, to place a surveillance camera inside the house.
- Brooks and his associates, defendants Massaroni and Hite, had a key made and entered Terry Miller's house without his knowledge to install a hidden video camera in his bedroom ceiling.
- Terry Miller discovered the camera and a videotape showing him undressing and in bed.
- Annette Miller also arranged for the local post office to hold Terry Miller's mail, which she and defendant Massaroni would then pick up and sort through, discarding some of it.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Terry Miller filed suit in trial court against defendants Annette K. Miller, Gregory Brooks, Brooks Investigations, Inc., and others.
- Plaintiff sought damages for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and damage to real property.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the trial court heard as motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all of plaintiff's claims.
- Plaintiff Terry Miller, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 North Carolina law recognize a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion where a separated spouse hires private investigators to install a hidden video camera in the other spouse's bedroom?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, Judge
Yes, North Carolina law recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion into the seclusion, solitude, or private affairs of another. The court adopts the definition from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, which subjects a person to liability for an intentional intrusion upon the solitude or private affairs of another if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Unlike other privacy torts previously rejected by the North Carolina Supreme Court (public disclosure of private facts and false light), the intrusion tort does not implicate First Amendment concerns. The acts alleged here—physically invading a person's bedroom to install a hidden camera and intercepting personal mail—are clear examples of conduct that a jury could find highly offensive. The marital relationship between Terry and Annette Miller does not preclude the claim, as they were estranged, living separately, and had an agreement giving the plaintiff sole possession of the home. Therefore, the trial court's grant of summary judgment is reversed.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion as a valid cause of action in North Carolina. It distinguishes this tort from others like 'false light' or 'public disclosure of private facts,' which the state's Supreme Court had rejected due to First Amendment free speech and press concerns. By adopting the intrusion tort, the court creates a remedy for wrongful snooping and surveillance that may not fit neatly into traditional claims like trespass or battery. This ruling strengthens privacy protections within one's home and personal affairs, setting a precedent that a reasonable expectation of privacy can be legally defended against highly offensive intrusions, even by an estranged spouse.
