{"id":6680,"date":"2025-08-31T14:54:24","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T14:54:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=6680"},"modified":"2025-12-14T18:20:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-14T18:20:11","slug":"lntrusion","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/lntrusion\/","title":{"rendered":"lntrusion &#038; trespass"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Trespass<\/b><\/span> \u2013 entering private property without consent, especially with cameras or drone video<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Surveillance <\/b><\/span>\u2013 bugging, hidden cameras, hacking<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Misrepresentation <\/b><\/span>and\u00a0undercover reporting<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Intrusion cases often involve media news-gathering, when hidden cameras or deception are involved. To win an intrusion suit, a plaintiff must prove that the media acted in a way that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. This is one of the most difficult areas to define since there is often no absolute expectation of privacy. There have been a number of instances of ethical trespass or deceptions when reporters have gone undercover to investigate matters of public interest. Nelly Bly\u2019s investigation of a New York City women\u2019s asylum in 1888, or John Howard Griffin&#8217;s undercover work for the 1961 book &#8220;Black Like Me&#8221; are examples.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Trespass\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">In Virginia and many other states, an unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) can&#8217;t get within 50 feet of someone&#8217;s house or be used to harass anyone. (<a href=\"https:\/\/law.lis.virginia.gov\/vacode\/title18.2\/chapter5\/section18.2-121.3\/\">Regulations here<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Cases involving media trespass include:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bc.edu\/bc_org\/avp\/cas\/comm\/free_speech\/gallela.html\">Galella v. Onassis<\/a>,<\/strong> 1972\u00a0 \u2014 Jackie Kennedy Onassis obtained a court injunction against New York paparazzi photographer Ron Galella, forcing him to stay\u00a050\u00a0<a title=\"Yard\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Yard\">yards<\/a>\u00a0(later changed to 25 feet) away from Onassis.<span style=\"font-size: 10px;\"> \u00a0<\/span>He was found guilty of breaking this order four times and faced seven years in jail and a US$120,000 fine; later settling for a US$10,000 fine and surrendering his rights to photograph Jackie and her children.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor and governor of California (2003 &#8211; 2011) was involved in constant conflict with rude &amp; aggressive\u00a0 paparazzi. One result was a <a href=\"http:\/\/rcfp.org\/california-bill-allows-anti-paparazzi-suits-against-third-parties\/\">2009 California law<\/a> making it easier to sue media organizations that published improperly obtained photos.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/supct.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/98-83.ZS.html\">Wilson v. Layne<\/a>,<\/strong> 1999 \u2014 Also important is the case\u00a0 that banned reporter\u00a0 \u201cride-alongs\u201d with police. In this case, police invited a Washington Post photographer\u00a0 to accompany them on a search warrant raid in 1992. Police were looking for the son of a Montgomery County, Maryland couple, but instead subdued the couple in the early morning hours. After being photographed in this more or less embarrassing situation, the couple sued for invasion of privacy. \u00a0The Supreme Court said that the police could not have predicted what course Constitutional law would take in this complex situation and were therefore not liable for damages. But the court also said that from that point forward ride-alongs could violate privacy<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Surveillance\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<div class=\"WaaZC\">\n<div class=\"RJPOee EIJn2\">\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>Dietmann v. Time,<\/strong><span style=\"color: #444444;\"> 1971, Life magazine Crackdown on Quackery<\/span>article, court ruled that indeed use of hidden electronic recording equipment by news media was invasion of privacy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/supct.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/html\/99-1687.ZS.html\">Bartnicki v. Vopper<\/a>,<\/strong> 2001 \u2014 A radio station DJ played a recording of an illegally intercepted cell phone call. The radio DJ said it was newsworthy and the court agreed that matters of public interest have a First Amendment shield even if the\u00a0 information was obtained illegally by a third party. <span data-huuid=\"13607605960392897991\"><span role=\"heading\" aria-level=\"2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jean_v._Massachusetts_State_Police\">Jean v. Mass. State Police<\/a> (2007)<\/span><span class=\"pjBG2e\" data-cid=\"c65e6b03-4407-4a1b-90b8-2d8a533a7ffd\"><span class=\"UV3uM\">\u00a0 also held that the First Amendment protects the news media&#8217;s disclosure of an illegally obtained video recording if it&#8217;s of significant public concern.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/News_of_the_World\">News of the World scandal<\/a><\/strong> 2011 &#8211; 2025 was a series of revelations involving the illegal wiretapping, hacking and surveillance of royals and celebrities in the UK.\u00a0 It resulted in the closure of the News of the World newspaper and the arrests of about a dozen of its editors.\u00a0 An inquiry by the Leveson Commission found\u00a0that the existing\u00a0<a title=\"Press Complaints Commission\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Press_Complaints_Commission\">Press Complaints Commission<\/a> was too weak. It recommended a new independent oversight commission.\u00a0 The final part of the saga ended with the 2025 settlement of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2025\/01\/21\/nx-s1-5269494\/prince-harry-murdoch-british-tabloids-settlement-offer\">a libel case brought by UK Prince Harry.<\/a><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\">\u00a0Deception\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.rcfp.org\/journals\/news-media-and-law-spring-2012\/landmark-food-lion-case\/\">ABC v Food Lion, 1997<\/a> <\/strong>&#8212; An appeals court declined to use a First Amendment analysis, and instead let trespassing charges stand, in a case involving broadcast reporters who got jobs at a Food Lion store and took video of bad practices behind the meat counter.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MORE\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/standards\/media-law-101\/privacy\/\">PBS media law 101 on Trespass\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Trespass \u2013 entering private property without consent, especially with cameras or drone video Surveillance \u2013 bugging, hidden cameras, hacking Misrepresentation and\u00a0undercover reporting Intrusion cases often involve media news-gathering, when hidden cameras or deception are involved. To win an intrusion suit, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/lntrusion\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6680","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6680","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6680"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6680\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6903,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6680\/revisions\/6903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}