By Carlos Miller
On a bright, sunny day in 2006, 18-year-old Nikki Catsouras took her father’s Porsche without permission and sped off down a California freeway at 100 mph before losing control and crashing into a toll booth.
She died instantly in a crash that decapitated her; a collision so horrific that the coroner would not even allow her parents to identify the body.
But pictures of her mangled body ended up online after they were leaked from a pair of California Highway Patrol officers conducting the investigation.
The pictures went viral, meaning they were accompanied by the usual mean-spirited comments you get from the usual anonymous idiots. And that understandably added to the stress the family was already going through.
So they responded with a lawsuit against the CHP on the grounds that the leaked pictures constituted an invasion of their privacy.
Although a judge stated that the officers’ actions were “utterly reprehensible,” not to mention a violation of departmental policy, he determined that no actual law was broken.
After all, if you can see something from a public street, you can photograph it. And if you can legally photograph it, you can legally distribute the photos.
Also, the photos being a legitimate part of the accident investigation, they should have been considered public record anyway, available upon request.
But last month, an appeals court reversed that decision.
In an opinion that contradicts previous California case law – as well as First Amendment case law - the appeals court gave a green light to the Catsouras family to sue the CHP for invasion of privacy, never mind the fact that dead people do not have a legal expectation of privacy.
The court believes that the surviving family’s privacy was invaded, even though their daughter was killed in broad daylight on a public freeway.
According to the 66-page opinion:
“We rely upon the CHP to protect and serve the public. It is antithetical to that expectation for the CHP to inflict harm upon us by making the ravaged remains of our loved ones the subjects of Internet sensationalism.”
But it could be argued that they were trying to service the public by sending out a warning against speeding, no different from the scare movies we were forced to sit through in grade school to keep us off drugs and so forth.
And even if they were sending the photos out for shock value, it should still be protected under the First Amendment. If anything, they should be subjected to termination for violating departmental policy.
The appeals court is essentially playing editor, nominating itself as gatekeeper of what it considers “sensationalist” news and photos.
But the First Amendment makes no exception to sensationalist news. Nor offensive or gruesome photos for that matter.
Coupled with the recent law to protect celebrities against photographers, the ruling is turning California into one of the least First Amendment friendly state in the nation. It’s hard to believe this is the same state that will probably be first in the nation to legalize marijuana.
According to Crime and Federalism, the decision can affect bloggers who are considered sensationalistic.
The CHP officers argued, as anyone of us might, that they had a First Amendment right to disseminate the crime-scene photographs. Perhaps their judgment could be questioned. Perhaps their superiors should sanction them for forwarding crime-scene photographs. Indeed, no one is claiming that the CHP officers did not make an error in judgment. None of that should matter, given that the First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak truthfully about whatever we like. We may not lie, and we may not like fire in a crowded theater. Otherwise, though, we are free to say what we will.
Recognizing that the CHP officers forwarded unaltered photographs, the Court of Appeal still ignores their First Amendment defense. The Court acted as a super-censor: “Here, the picture painted by the second amended complaint is one of pure morbidity and sensationalism without legitimate public interst or law enforcement purpose.” Slip op. at 17.
Where is the “sensationalism” exception to the First Amendment? The First Amendment provides that “Congress [and the States, vis-a-vis the Fourteenth Amendment] shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech [].” Even morbid and sensational speech is protected.
By allowing the lawsuit against the CHP officers to proceed, the Court of Appeal has made all of us unfree. Is your blogging morbid and sensationalistic? Some of mine is certainly hysteric. May the Court of Appeal, post hoc, extinguish my First Amendment rights because they don’t like one of my posts? Under Catsouras’s reasoning, what is stopping them?
The photos in question can be seen here. They are gruesome so don’t say I didn’t warn you. Also, be careful with the “uncensored video” as it appears to be contain malware.
Popularity: 2% [?]
37 responses so far ↓
1 Steve M. // Feb 11, 2010 at 3:21 AM
Gruesome pictures indeed.
2 Tim Post // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM
If its visible from public property, it can be photographed. Ruling otherwise puts us on a very dangerous, very slippery slope.
I find the officer’s judgement reprehensible, however, he was within his rights to take and public those photographs.
A picture is a picture, the subject is incidental.
Tim Post´s last blog ..US National Archives Joins Flickr Commons
3 Jon Quimbly // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:31 AM
Carlos, and the lawyers among us, does the First Amendment apply equally to CHP officers who release non-public information obtained on the job?
My read of the appeal decision is that this case was about the government violating the privacy rights of citizens, and not about the rights of government employees to publish private information about the public.
The photos were state property, taken by CHP investigators, and it was department policy that the photos were not to be disseminated to the public. But they released them anyway.
From the decision:
From the Crime and Federalism article:
Government employees are not “free to say what [they] will.” The First Amendment does not apply equally to government workers (or private sector employees), or to releasing non-public information obtained from their work, on the job. Excepting whistle-blowers of course, though there’s not a lot of protection for them either, yet.
Because this case was about citizen privacy vs government intrusion, and not the public or government vs the press, I have trouble accepting that it will affect bloggers and the press at large.
4 Vinisimo // Feb 11, 2010 at 9:36 AM
I agree with Jon Q. We need to remember that the Constitution protects the public from government. The First Amendment (and the rest of the constitution) is not applicable to a government employee while on the job.
5 Tim Post // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM
The words “The first amendment (and the rest of the constitution) is not applicable” are dangerous, no matter what follows them.
Does this mean police officers can be tortured for failing to write enough speeding tickets? In the absence of a constitution, that would be a possibility.
Please keep in mind that the government is comprised of citizens.
Tim Post´s last blog ..US National Archives Joins Flickr Commons
6 Kyle // Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM
What the heck are you talking about? That link doesn’t say that the First Amendment doesn’t apply at all. It says exactly what other people have said… that you have the right to say something, but you don’t have the right to be employed. It seems that government employees are MORE protected, since there are certain things (as in the link) that they CAN’T be fired for that private sector works could be.
7 Jon Quimbly // Feb 11, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I agree that Vinisimo’s statement is overbroad.
Another take: say that NYPD clerks began releasing police photos documenting the post-hoc forensic pelvic exams of female rape victims. Would this be free speech/press, or a violation of the victims’ privacy rights? As I understand it, a citizen working for the NYPD may not release photos of that type under cover of free speech or press, due to law and policy restricting the release of certain types of information from government to public.
Plus, that sort of information wouldn’t ordinarily be obtainable by journalists working from publicy-available info; only a government worker with access could do that.
It’s my unlawyered opinion that the same principle applies in the case of the photos of the teen Porsche pilot and her head, may they both RIP (I wonder if they got separate burial plots?)
8 Jon Quimbly // Feb 11, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Go ahead and read my comment again, I never said “doesn’t apply at all,” I said “does not apply equally.” Yes, the link was about free speech as it applies to public servants in the scope of punishment for same, but it’s related.
Catsouras, is a constitutional tort case against the CHP and its employees for privacy violation and intentional infliction of emotional distress etc., due to the release of photos. The cops claim (among other things) that their actions are protected under First Amendment.
My point is that it’s not protected free speech when policy and law are violated to make private info public. In this case, the cops were punished by the CHP (suspended w/o pay) for their actions, according to the case transcripts. Their employer has concluded that they were wrong to release the photos.
9 mepsipax // Feb 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM
They should be fired…but criminal prosecution would be iffy. The pictures weren’t their property but could easily have been taken from public property.
mepsipax´s last blog ..I am a Dick
10 Kyle // Feb 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM
“After all, if you can see something from a public street, you can photograph it. And if you can legally photograph it, you can legally distribute the photos.
Also, the photos being a legitimate part of the accident investigation, they should have been considered public record anyway, available upon request.”
It’s not private info.
11 Jon Quimbly // Feb 11, 2010 at 1:54 PM
If the CHP officers had taken the photos as off-duty private citizens, yes that doctrine would apply. But because the photos were taken while they were acting as employees of the State, collecting information for a police investigation, it does not apply, IMO.
Let’s say that LAPD detectives are on the trail of a serial killer, and the killer leaves a clue at each crime scene, and the crime scenes are in public but taped off. Top brass decides not to release any info about clues gathered, to protect the investigation (whatever their reason.) Can the detectives legally release that non-public information without consequence? I’d think not.
Granting press protections to public employees for releasing restricted information would be very bad for privacy. There are plenty of ways whistleblowers can disclose information about corruption without sanction (WikiLeaks.org, newspapers, etc.) These CHP cops did not take that route, they email blasted them to friends and family.
12 discarted // Feb 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM
What’s the difference between releasing these photos and a person’s mug shot?
Are mug shots public and accident photos taken in public not?
Is a mug shot not evidence?
13 Kyle // Feb 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM
@Jon: Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be fired. We’re saying that there is no case against them for releasing “shock and awe” pictures or for “invasion of privacy”.
14 Gabriel // Feb 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM
I’m not commenting on the merits of the decision but I did see a profile of the family last year and damn those people have been tortured with those pictures as a result of their release. They have two younger kids who along with their parents live in constant dread over opening emails -harmless as they appear- as people continually send them those photos of that accident. That doesn’t include the hard copies that are snail mailed or left in their lockers/cars. There are some sick bastards out there.
15 Florida // Feb 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I agree with Jon’s 100% on this one. His analogy comparing it to photo’s of rape victims was dead on considering that photos of the deceased have landed on porn sites. I wouldn’t put it past cops to abuse photos of that nature either. Believing in free speech and supporting our rights should not mean you can do whatever the hell you want to other people. Security guards harassing harmless photographers under the guise of terrorism is just as wrong as someone with a vendetta messing with someone under the guise of “free speech”. The cops intentions on this were not good. Malicious intentions should not be supported under the guise of “freedom”. Also I disagree with those who argue the public property thing. The accident scene was likely blocked off and the cops misused their position to get the more explicit photos. I remember when AOL first wrote about this one. The comments were beyond cruel. Many an imbecile got a real kick that some rich pretty girl died gruesomely. The level of hate for this complete stranger was astounding. I strongly disagree with Carlos decision to further disseminate these photos. How would any of us feel if this was our dead dog, much less our child being exploited like this? Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.
16 Jon Quimbly // Feb 11, 2010 at 6:46 PM
I overstated the hypothetical case of rape victim exam photos (which couldn’t be publicly photographed) to make the point: whether any/all information gathered by gov’t employees is in the public domain (no), or for public release (not often enough! FOIA’s existence alone should be a reminder.)
In this case, the CHP punished one of the cops for releasing the photos – that and the appellate transcript are my basis for concluding they weren’t meant for public release.
Happy to be corrected by another opinion on this, however. Lawyers, please!
17 discarted // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM
@Florida
“I agree with Jon’s 100% on this one. His analogy comparing it to photo’s of rape victims was dead on considering that photos of the deceased have landed on porn sites.”
photos of rape victims are generally taken in medical rooms that are very, very private. not in public. it’s apples and oranges.
“I wouldn’t put it past cops to abuse photos of that nature either. Believing in free speech and supporting our rights should not mean you can do whatever the hell you want to other people.”
then charge the people with a crime. for instance, harassment. no?
“Also I disagree with those who argue the public property thing. The accident scene was likely blocked off and the cops misused their position to get the more explicit photos.”
this is conjecture. you don’t know any of this. plus, you can see from the photos and video that is was not.
“I strongly disagree with Carlos decision to further disseminate these photos.”
I don’t. Death is a natural part of this world. Get over it. Plus, how can people be expected to respect the dead when they can’t even respect the living. The phrase is such a cliche nowadays.
“How would any of us feel if this was our dead dog, much less our child being exploited like this? Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.”
Like commenting on blogs. We try to stop ourselves but we just can’t.
It’s funny how nobody seems to be raising issues about photos of dead haitians lying in the streets of Haiti that are being published daily by major news outlets. However, as soon as it happens to an american on american soil it’s a problem.
FYI, images like this are shown daily in the news in other countries. For example, just look at the front pages of Mexico’s newspapers. There’s likely a photo of a dead and very bloody body lying in the street
18 Fascist Nation // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Simple Justice blogged about this on the first…thanks for the update and links.
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/02/01/rights-wrongs-and-a-decapitated-head.aspx
The dead have no expectation of privacy, nor can they sue, nor do they have any rights at all. I remember this became a big thing in New Mexico quite a few years ago when they decided to make virtually all of their records restricted to government workers and to the individuals whose file(s) were involved. Even dead people’s files were blocked from public access.
19 genewitch // Feb 11, 2010 at 9:18 PM
this is a civil case, not a criminal case, and it was merely to establish if there was a civil liability that could be tried, correct?
I don’t think anyone is claiming that the officers didn’t have the right to do what they did (although their employer can and should mandate otherwise) – but the fact that they actually did do it gives the victim’s family someone to lash out against. Which, mind you, i also disagree with.
I argue that were this a private citizen, this wouldn’t even be an issue, and if it were, then it would have a first amendment basis. To me, it sounds like the cops were citing first amendment as a “pass” to do whatever the hell they want with crime scene photos, and THAT, carlos, is what you should be talking about. the fact that the COPS who obviously have LITTLE respect for the first amendment are using it as a BULLSHIT excuse to avoid CIVIL liability in this circumstance.
It’s called HYPOCRISY – and it should be trumpeted across the nation’s headlines, along with links to EVERY abuse by police officers against people taking photos at/around crime scenes or arrests.
20 Dude // Feb 12, 2010 at 8:55 AM
What does this convoluted interpretation of the first amendment have to do with the court’s reversal?
Gotta enjoy how Carlos matter-of-factly manufactures interpretations of the first amendment, but is curiously silent when this family is clearly seeking redress.
Please, please, please reread (or read) the first amendment or at least remove its mention from the header of this blog.
21 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM
I don’t see the First Amendment here.
Defendants took property not theirs (pictures the property of the State) and used them in a fashion that was both against their employment terms and predictably harmful to the plaintiffs.
While “it could be argued that they were trying to service the public by sending out a warning against speeding, no different from the scare movies we were forced to sit through in grade school to keep us off drugs and so forth…” that would be a lie, as that is not what happened. That would be using state property for a state purpose.
Think of it this way: A police officer has photographs of child pornography and sends them to friends…is that the First Amendment speech? No.
The fact that a member of the public could have taken these pictures isn’t relevant. If such a member of the public had taken pictures, and distributed them, we would have a different issue, as no duty would be owed.
Oh, and the right to privacy ending upon death is interesting, but not quite correct. The Supremes don’t think so. And, it’s very different state to state.
However, Carlos isn’t being a hypocrite here, quite the contrary. He’s standing up for a principle, even though the players are police. It shows the principle is the thing, not the people involved. While I think he’s wrong, it’s not because of motivation.
22 Tim Post // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM
@torgeaux:
Your rights are exactly as the Bill Of Rights and Constitution provide unless you sign them away.
The point your raise here is very interesting, and I’d be extremely interested in knowing if the department could claim ownership of all intellectual property (a misnomer that everyone loves to use, it really means copyright, patent and trademark) that its officers produce on shift. I doubt it, as Police officers are not tasked with producing works that are covered by copyright, patents or trademarks. They are tasked with enforcing laws. Photographs are covered by copyright.
If such a clause existed in any paperwork that the officer signed prior to being hired, I think it would have come to light by now.
Carlos is raising a fundamental point. There is no “unless” in the Bill Of Rights or Constitution in consideration of an American citizen.
Accepting without arguing against a ruling such as this egregiously erodes your freedom.
Precedence is key here, be careful
Tim Post´s last blog ..US National Archives Joins Flickr Commons
23 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Tim Post: First, photos taken, as part of their duties, and with state equipment, are not the intellectual property of the officers who took them. Second, the officers in question didn’t take the pictures.
Second, there are many, many limitations on constitutional rights…as a (now retired) member of the armed services, I have such limitations. So do other government officials/employees.
oh, and regarding the “public records” argument, yes, but not all law enforcement records are subject to release. There are in fact exceptions specific to law enforcement.
24 Tim Post // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM
As an ancillary:
That would be illegal. Police officers are required to obey the same laws that they enforce. Some exceptions are made, i.e. being able to speed, drive through red lights, carry a weapon openly, etc.
Your point in that statement strongly resembles something stuffed full of straw in the likeness of a worst case scenario set up to be attacked.
Tim Post´s last blog ..US National Archives Joins Flickr Commons
25 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM
The precedent here seems just fine, thanks, and I find the ruling good, not egregious at all.
And, you say, without support, “Police officers are not tasked with producing works that are covered by copyright, patents of trademarks. They are tasked with enforcing laws.” Inaccurate. Police officers are also tasked, as here, not with enforcing law (they didn’t in this case, for example) but investigating potential violations. In that role, they produce photographs, videos, even sketches. Those produced in that role are part of their employment.
The right of expression is not harmed by telling a police officer that the private material he discovers solely as a result of performing his official duties can be limited in their dissemination. In fact, it would be absurd to hold contrary to that.
26 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM
No, not a straw man, an imperfect analogy.
So, eliminate the contraband nature: Nude photographs of a woman, discovered in the course of the investigation. Or, nude photos taken to show bruising to a breast. Nothing per se illegal about those photos, right? “They’re PUBLIC RECORDS!!!!” We should all get to look at them, or the first amendment fails!
No, no problem with this decision. I’d really like to see an argument where this decision can impact somone’s future first amendment rights.
27 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Copyright:
According to the copyright statutes, in a work-for-hire arrangement, the individual photographer never owns the copyright–the employer does. Work-for-hire agreements automatically exist when employees take pictures for their employers.
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/legacy_report/questions.html
28 Florida // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:41 PM
“To me, it sounds like the cops were citing first amendment as a “pass” to do whatever the hell they want with crime scene photos, and THAT, carlos, is what you should be talking about. the fact that the COPS who obviously have LITTLE respect for the first amendment are using it as a BULLSHIT excuse to avoid CIVIL liability in this circumstance.”
AMEN. You can bet if one of us did this to a police DOG they’d be arguing the other side big time. Not only that but we’d be facing charges. Funny how no one here was defending a certain man named Kurt Greenbaum’s First Amendment right to be a royal pussy by simply speaking to a school employee. I see some strong similarities between this case and that one: The teachers right to privacy got trashed by someone who should’ve respected it, and he did it by having insider access to his info. People here threw a fit:
“Greenbaum violated the Post-Dispatch’s privacy policy by contacting the school and forwarding them the email. He claims he hasn’t but that issue is debatable. First Amendment attorney and Photography is Not a Crime reader Marc Randazza, who is a former journalist, agrees that Greenbaum violated this policy and is calling for his resignation.” “He certainly violated the confidentiality between his readers and the newspaper, one of the main principles of journalism; a fundamental so sacred that many journalists have spent time in jail before revealing a source.”
It would be nice if cops could hold the principal of BASIC respect for a dead person and their family sacred. But apparently the only thing they hold sacred is their jerkoff fellow officers, their fat pensions, and their right to torture us at their whim. We can’t support this just because they happened to steal one from our playbook.
I think some of you are forgetting that the real purpose of laws is supposed to be about protecting us from harm, intrusion and abuse by not only our fellow man but particularly those in power. Cops are pigs and politicians are idiots who will bastardize everything they touch. That doesn’t mean that there’s no morality inherent in some of these laws. People who break the rules should not get a free pass by waving the banner of “free speech”. Some of you Constitutionalists need to remember that document also mentions a little something about “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. All you photographers who constantly site this are simply using it to protect YOU from harm: you’re asserting your right to live your life in peace. Those pigs actions that day damaged a grieving family’s ability to do just that. What about them? You can’t just say “tough luck”.
29 Carlos Miller // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM
There have been many times during my journalistic career when I covered the cop beat for newspapers that I was shown photos of deceased victims.
These were never published because newspapers just don’t do that, but they were made available to me as part of a public records request.
So it’s not that police departments have a policy in place that forbids them from releasing these types of photos.
In this case, the photos were released without authorization, which is an internal matter and should be handled within the department.
When you say the photos are property of the state, you are acknowledging that they are public record.
Whether they were distributed to a journalist under a public records request or released to friends through email should not make a difference in the eyes of the court.
30 Carlos Miller // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM
The First Amendment issue here is how the appeals court described the actions of distributing the photos as “sensationalistic” rather than citing an actual law that forbids the officers from doing so.
If a newspaper had made the request and published the photos. Or say maybe a magazine such as Hustler which would probably publish such photos, would that request be denied under “an invasion of privacy” law?
If so, then it becomes a First Amendment issue.
31 Jon Quimbly // Feb 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM
“When you say the photos are property of the state, then you are saying they are property of the state, you are acknowledging that they are public record.”
This just isn’t so, and I’m baffled by this idea of “property of the state … public record.” There are many kinds of documents possessed by the State (for whichever jurisdiction you’d like to consider) that are not available to the public.
If they were, neither of us would ever have to file another FOIA request again. My FOIA denial rate only increased over the last decade, though Obama’s made moves to tone it down.
Notionally, yes, We The People own the State, but our representatives have erected many barriers against public access to state information over the last 233+ years, from Top Secret to medical records all the way down to juvenile offender name redaction.
Anyways, this is certainly one of the more contentious AND interesting arguments I’ve seen PINAC – some clarity from an attorney would be nice. I’m out of my depth.
32 torgeaux // Feb 12, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Well, no. State owned documents are not necessarily records that can be released or viewed by the public.
This is not a First Amendment case, and the officers had no legitimate use of these photos, that were also copyright owned by the State. I notice that there’s no real anger here over the violation of copyright by these officers, why is that?
33 Florida // Feb 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Because apparently when you wave that banner of “free speech” all copyright and tort laws go out the window. Like others here I’m not an attorney so I’m admittedly out of my league concerning a few things. However I do have common sense and know a BS excuse when I hear one. Not to go off topic but this reminds me of another case I read about a while back. I cannot for the life of me understand how a federal judge can say that this couple
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/092009/09052009/491779/index_html
did not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and “lacked possession, control, and dominion” over their own private property. The Fourth Amendment means nothing, even though these particular photos were essentially stolen and had absolutely nothing to do with the arrest!?? If this judge thinks it’s ok that the “officer then shared the pictures…[and] alerted several additional law enforcement officers and members of the public “that the private pictures were available for their viewing and enjoyment” I have to wonder if your honor is siding with the cops only because he enjoys some “toe tapping” with a few of them in the court house mens room. Is it just me, or does this one provoke ire and provide yet another example of laws being interpreted in favor of wrongdoing cops?
34 genewitch // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM
You quoted me but i think we aren’t on the same page… the family is the least of my concern. My problem is with the defense the police used, rather than what they actually did. Since this is a civil case, there’s not going to be any criminal precedent set by it (i don’t think…)
I say this again, i don’t have a problem with police in general; we have to have them around, currently, and they try their best most of the time. I certainly wish they HADN’T done what they did, but i don’t think it’s a criminal issue, merely a “well, you’re fired” issue. And the family can try and get redress from them, but i doubt they will be able to – and not because of the BS first amendment argument the defense is claiming.
35 Carlos Miller // Feb 13, 2010 at 5:21 AM
If any of us would have shown up on the scene after the crash and taken photos, then posted them on the internet, there is no way it could have been considered an “invasion of privacy” because the accident occurred on a public road in broad daylight.
So I don’t understand how the court can rule that it was an invasion of privacy in this case.
The dead do not have an expectation of privacy. And neither do the living while they are in public.
It is obvious the court ruled this way because of the way the anonymous assholes on the internet responded to the photos.
Those assholes began to harass and torment the family.
But that is not the fault of the cops, even though they did commit a departmental violation by releasing the photos.
This ruling is along the lines of a heavy metal band being accused of murder because some teenager listened to lyrics and decided to kill people.
We need to go back to what the law considers “an expectation of privacy.”
There is no expectation of privacy in a traffic fatality on a public road in broad daylight.
While the family may have an expectation of privacy, the cops did not publish their address or phone number or email or any other personal information.
That information was obtained by those anonymous assholes in some other manner.
The cops have no control of their actions, just as they have no control over me in writing this blog.
What the cops did was distribute photos of subject matter that was visible to anybody in the area.
And now they are being faulted because of it.
That is why this is a First Amendment issue.
36 torgeaux // Feb 13, 2010 at 6:05 AM
That argument MAY win, the court didn’t exclude that as a defense, which is why you are over-reading the case. The concurring opinion noted that the reason it wouldn’t prevent the case from going forward is that the plaintiff’s allege the police prevented public access and thereby made the scene one not subject to public view.
You can keep repeating that the dead have no expectation of privacy, but it doesn’t make it the law. Again, persuasive authority from the Supreme Court disagrees with that.
Finally, of course, you keep acting like the police weren’t at fault here, that anonymous internet people did all the wrong here. It doesn’t help your position to fail to acknowledge that the cops in question were scumbags. Also, of course, it doesn’t help that you don’t acknowledge the copyright issues that exist and also hurt the cops position.
The cops are scumbags, and this case sets zero bad precedence, and when scumbags get sued for being scumbags, I’m generally in favor of that.
37 Evan // Feb 16, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Being at fault isn’t illegal.
Leave a Comment