No. The journalists didn't do anything illegal. For the privacy claim, the court said that the Senator's employees were the ones who did the snooping ('intrusion'), not the reporters. The reporters only received the information; they didn't break in themselves. For the theft ('conversion') claim, the court said you can't steal something if the owner gets it back unharmed. The Senator got his original papers back, so nothing was really taken. While he claimed the *information* was stolen, the law says you can't 'own' general information in your files like you own a car. Therefore, the journalists couldn't be guilty of stealing it.

I agree with the result, but this feels wrong. It's strange that we're saying it's okay for reporters to use information gotten in a way that would be totally illegal for the police. If cops did this, any evidence would be thrown out of court. But the press gets a pass. However, based on the law and how this specific case was argued, I have to agree with the final decision.

No, Pearson and Anderson didn't break the law. The information in the articles was important for the public to know, so publishing it wasn't an invasion of privacy. Even though Pearson and Anderson knew the documents were taken without permission, just receiving and using the information isn't enough to make them guilty of invading Dodd's privacy. They also didn't steal the actual papers because the originals were returned unharmed and the information copied wasn't the kind of thing protected as property you can steal. The court said sneaking into private matters is now officially against the law in D.C., even without physically breaking in, but publishing private information isn't always part of that.

I agree with the majority's decision because I have to follow precedent, but I find it strange that behavior that would get the police in trouble is seemingly okay when journalists do it for money. The news media act like public institutions but then don't want the same rules applied to them that they want for the government. However, we can only make a decision based on the limited information and arguments in front of us. I think Senator Dodd might have won if all the facts and legal arguments were included, but I still have to agree with the result here.

We approve the extension of the tort of invasion of privacy to instances of intrusion, whether by physical trespass or not, into spheres from which an ordinary man in a plaintiff's position could reasonably expect that the particular defendant should be excluded.

In Pearson, the plaintiff brought an intrusion claim against Pearson, who published the plaintiff's confidential files after he received them from two of the plaintiff's former employees, who removed them from his office.

Although the term "invasion of privacy" covers four different torts, in many instances, various theories of invasion of privacy are combined in one case.

In modern tort law, this rule has been relaxed somewhat in favor of the "reasonable proposition that any intangible generally protected as personal property may be the subject***[of] conversion."

Likewise, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, declared that a defendant who removes documents "from the files at night," photocopies them and returns them "to the files undamaged before office operations resumed in the morning" has not committed a sufficiently substantial deprivation of use to represent conversion.

"*** If we were to hold appellants liable for invasion of privacy on these facts, we would establish the proposition that one who receives information from an intruder, knowing it has been obtained by improper intrusion, is guilty of a tort. In an untried and developing area of tort law, we are not prepared to go so far

"Conversion is a tort based on the theory that the defendant `has in some way treated the goods as if they were his own, so that the plaintiff can properly ask the court to decree a forced sale of the property.'"

Unlike some other types of invasion of privacy, intrusion does not require as an essential element the publication of the information obtained, RESTATEMENT, supra note 5, § 652B, comment (a

Plaintiff contends that architectural plans have value above and beyond that accruing to their physical possession and are subject to conversion.(Paper 33 at 11

When a defendant's interference "falls short of the complete or very substantial deprivation of possessory rights in the property, the tort committed is not conversion."

No. The journalists are not liable for either invasion of privacy or conversion. With respect to privacy, the tort of intrusion is completed by the improper act of obtaining the information, not by its publication. While Dodd's employees may have committed an intrusion, the journalists' only role was receiving the information, which is not itself an intrusion. Since the published information was of public interest regarding a U.S. Senator, the publication itself was also not an invasion of privacy. Regarding conversion, the tort requires a serious interference with the owner's possessory rights in a chattel. Here, the original documents were returned unharmed, so Dodd was not deprived of their use. The claim is essentially for the conversion of the information itself, but information is not subject to protection by conversion unless it constitutes literary property, scientific invention, or commercial secrets, which the information in Dodd's files did not.

The author concurs with the majority's conclusion but expresses unease with its implications. He notes the irony that the news media, which demand strict restraints on government conduct, are here permitted to benefit from actions that would be illegal for law enforcement and would lead to the suppression of any evidence obtained. While finding the situation anomalous, the author feels bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and the limited record presented on appeal, which confines the court's review to the specific legal theories argued by the parties.

No. The court found that the appellants did not commit an invasion of privacy or conversion. The information published was of public interest, and the appellants' role in obtaining the information, while knowing it was obtained without authorization, did not make them liable for intrusion. The court also concluded that the appellants are not guilty of conversion as the documents were returned undamaged and the information taken was not considered property protected by conversion law. The court approves the extension of the tort of invasion of privacy to include intrusion, which does not require publication of the information obtained as an essential element. I conclude this because the columns concerned Senator Dodd's public activities and qualifications, which are matters of legitimate public interest not subject to a claim of invasion of privacy. Additionally, while the appellants knew the documents were improperly obtained, merely receiving and using the information does not rise to the level of intrusion. Finally, conversion requires a serious interference with the owner's right to control the property, which did not occur here as the original documents were returned unharmed and the information copied was not the type of property protected by conversion law.

I concur in the majority's disposition of this case, as I am bound by stare decisis, although I find it ironic that conduct which would be condemned if engaged in by law enforcement is seemingly tolerated when done by the press for profit. There appears to be an anomaly in the news media viewing themselves as quasi-public institutions while demanding immunity from the restraints they insist be placed on government. However, our review is limited by the record before us based on the pleadings and stipulations at the district court level. Upon this record, I must concur, even though I suspect the appellee may have had a legal remedy if all possible legal theories were presented by the facts and pleadings.

Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson v. Thomas J. Dodd

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot