The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy for Pocket Dialed Exposure of Conversation

Posted on September 1, 2015 by Larry Bodine

pocket dialThe Sixth Circuit court of appeals has ruled that inadvertent “pocket-dial” phone calls are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act).

The court ruled that the person making the inadvertent call has no expectation of privacy.

James Huff, Chairman of the Kentucky International Airport Board, was on a business trip in Italy with his wife, Bertha Huff, and the Vice Chairman of the Board, Larry Savage.

Pocket dialed a board member

During a conversation between James and Savage, while discussing the possibility of replacing Candace McGraw, the CEO of the Kentucky International Airport, James’ iPhone pocket dialed Carol Spaw, the Board liaison and senior executive assistant to the Airport CEO.

Spaw said “hello” several times, but within “ninety seconds” she realized that “Huff and Savage were discussing McGraw’s employment situation and that the call was not intended” for her.  Spaw claims that she overheard James Huff and Savage engaged in a conversation to “discriminate unlawfully against McGraw.”

Spaw took handwritten notes of the conversation and recorded the last four minutes of the 91-minute phone call, including James Huff’s conversation later with his wife Bertha.

After having a third party enhance the audio quality of the recording, Spaw shared a typewritten summary of the notes and the enhanced recording with the other members of the airport board.

Husband and wife file claim under Wiretap Act

Bertha and James Huff filed a complaint against Spaw, alleging that she violated the Wiretap Act by intentionally intercepting, using and disclosing the contents of their oral communications.  The district court granted Spaw summary judgement, ruling that the Huffs did not have a reasonable expectation that their conversation would not be intercepted.  The Huffs appealed the decision.

The circuit court ruled that James Huff failed to “exhibit an expectation of privacy” because he exposed his conversation to Spaw when he placed the pocket-dial call to her.  Applying the plain-view doctrine, the court reasoned that the “exposure need not be deliberate and instead can be an inadvertent product of neglect,” and is applicable to auditory as well as visual information.

See also: Florida Court Finds No Expectation of Privacy on Facebook

James Huff admitted to being aware of the risk of inadvertent pocket-dialing and had in the past, made such pocket-dial calls. The court discussed several “simple and well-known measures” that could prevent pocket-dialing, including locking the phone, using a password, or using a phone app to prevent “unwanted butt-dialing.”

The court found that James Huff’s operation of a device that is capable of inadvertently exposing his conversations to a third party and his failure to prevent such exposures fails to show he had any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Wife has expectation of Privacy

The circuit court reversed and remanded the issue of Bertha Huff’s expectation of privacy under the Wiretap act.  The court found that Bertha Huff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation she was having with her husband in their private hotel room, even if she was aware that he was carrying a cell phone capable of recording or transmitting the conversation.

However, once Bertha was made aware that her husband’s phone was connected to Spaw’s, and then she would no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the wiretap act.

The court remanded for the district court to determine if Spaw’s actions of answering the phone, turning up the volume, transcribing notes and recording the last four minutes of the call was an intentional use of a device to intercepted Bertha Huff’s statements in violation of the Wiretap act.

The case is Huff v. Spaw, case number 14-5123 in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

 

 

Posted in Blog, Business Law, Consumer Protection, Criminal Law / DUI, Employment

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has set aside $3.9 billion for talc-related litigation, according to a regulatory [Read More...]
Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Seattle-based Alaska Airlines has been ordered to pay more than $3 million to the family of a passenger of reduced mobility w[Read More...]
No thumbnail available

Keith Givens on the Trial Lawyers Summit and Lanier Trial Academy

https://vimeo.com/515910581 Michelle Swanner, Executive Director of The National Trial Lawyers, interviews Keith Givens[Read More...]
A $220M Settlement Reached in National Milk Producers' Herd Retirement Program

A $220M Settlement Reached in National Milk Producers' Herd Retirement Program

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 22, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- A $220 million settlement has been reached in a class-action law[Read More...]
Mountaire Farms Proposes a $65M Settlement for Contaminating the Millsboro-Area Groundwater and Air

Mountaire Farms Proposes a $65M Settlement for Contaminating the Millsboro-Area Groundwater and Air

It’s a lawsuit that’s been years in the making, but the class-action suit against Mountaire Farms may be approach[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.