The U. S., Constitution makes no reference specifically to the right of privacy. Accountability for invasion of privacy is a growing problem especially when it occurs via social media or through electronic devices and within the confines of one’s home. Once a person’s private circumstances or information is made public without his or her permission, they become eligible to take certain legal action against the one who first revealed the previously concealed information, depending on the laws associated with that state.“For a successful lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions caused his or her privacy to be invaded.”
In a divorce situation each party has a right to do what he or she wants because they share marital property. In the Georgia case of Rutter v. Rutter, 730 S. E 2d 626 (2012), Charles Rutter petitioned the court to dismiss any evidence that was presented against him in his divorce case, that might have been revealed in connection with several video surveillance devices that were secretly installed by his wife in their marital home. He argued that it was a violation of OCGA 16-11-62 (2), which makes it unlawful for a person to conduct video surveillance of another in a private place, out of public view, and without consent. What Rutter did not realize was that there was an exception to the general prohibition that expressly permits one to conduct video surveillance of persons “within the curtilage of his or her own residence” for certain purposes. As a result, the Georgia court of appeals denied the claim.
Divorce attorney Susan Stelter explains variations surrounding invasion of privacy within marriage. April 12, 2013. (Photo by: Robin Hamilton/Full Sail University).
Susan E. Stelter, associate for Thomas C. Rowsey, P.C., Attorneys at Law specializes in divorce cases. She stated, “Invasion of privacy runs the gamut.” In other words, it covers a broad spectrum. Spouses must know the law and should be careful about how they gather information about each other. Stelter warns that “if private information is left in plain view inside or outside of the home or office, then there is no expectation of privacy which means there is no violation. However, the rules change when electronic devices are used to gather the data.”
Not all courts agree on what composes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a marital situation.
In 2011, a Nebraska mother embedded a listening device in her daughter’s teddy bear and was found to be in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. In 2008, an Iowa man was ruled guilty of violating his wife’s privacy when he secretly taped her with an alarm clock camera installed in the bedroom of the home they shared.
In addition, computer software companies sell software that is able to copy e-mails, instant messages, etc. Since these devices have legitimate uses, regulators find it difficult to police their sales, however, in 2008 the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against a company that sold undetectable spyware called, RemoteSpy. They were charged with unfair and deceptive practices.
“At least five of the 13 U.S. circuit courts have found that the Federal Wiretap Act does prohibit surveillance within marriages. But at least two have ruled that the law does not prohibit recording your spouse,” Stelter added.
