Court of Appeal Revives Privacy Suit Over Death Photos on Internet
The Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday revived a suit against two California Highway Patrol officers who allegedly leaked grisly photos of an 18-year-old Orange County woman’s death in a vehicle collision that circulated on the Internet, drawing taunts against her family.Reversing a ruling dismissing invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence claims, Div. Three held that Nicole Catsouras’ family members had a common law privacy interest, subject to certain limits, in images of her mutilated corpse.Justice Eileen C. Moore wrote that the officers and the CHP also owed the family “a duty of care not to place [Catsouras’] death images on the Internet for the purposes of vulgar spectacle.”Vehicle CollisionCatsouras was decapitated on Halloween in 2006 when the Porsche 911 she was driving at close to 100 miles per hour clipped another vehicle, tumbled over a median and smashed into a concrete tollbooth. Two CHP officers who responded to the scene, Thomas O’Donnell and Aaron Reich, allegedly e-mailed nine graphic photos of Catsouras’ lifeless body to friends unrelated to their investigation the same day for “shock value.”The images spread virally to more than 2,500 websites on the Internet, and users at large sent Catsouras’ family e-mails containing the photographs, including one entitled “Woo Hoo Daddy” that said, “Hey Daddy I’m still alive.” Other users painted Catsouras’ life in a false light, including websites describing her as a “stupid bitch,” a “swinger” and a “spoiled rich girl [who] deserved it.”Catsouras’ family sued the officers and the CHP, but Orange Superior Court Judge Steven L. Perk dismissed. Finding no duty on behalf of the officers to the family and no basis for a federal civil rights suit, he sustained demurrers by the officers and entered judgment for the CHP.Surviving FamilyOn appeal, Moore noted that a decedent—not family members—holds any cause of action for invasion of privacy as to media discussing or portraying the decedent’s life. However, after examining cases from other jurisdictions, she concluded that surviving family members do have a privacy interest in the decedent’s “death image,” subject to limitations involving issues of public interest or freedom of the press.“How can a decedent be injured in his or her privacy by the publication of death images, which only come into being once the decedent has passed on,” she asked. “The dissemination of death images can only affect the living.”Moore wrote that Perk erred in sustaining the officers’ demurrers to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where Catsouras’ family alleged the officers acted with intent to cause them emotional distress.She also said the family had a cause of action against the CHP and the officers for negligence supporting emotional distress damages because the officers and the agency owed a duty of care where it was foreseeable that Internet dissemination would cause Catsouras’ family “devastating trauma,” the officers’ alleged acts were “morally deficient,” and it was important to prevent such conduct from happening again in the future.“It is a sad day, to be sure, when those upon whom we rely to protect and serve do the opposite, and make the decapitated corpse of a teenage girl the subject of international gossip and disrespect, and inflict devastating emotional harm on the parents and siblings of that girl,” she wrote. “The CHP should know better. Every one of its officers should know better.”Civil Rights ActionHowever, the justice said Perk properly sustained the defendants’ demurrer as to the family’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against the CHP based on sovereign immunity. She also said the claim failed against the officers where the plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficiently alleging a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right.Justice William F. Rylaarsdam joined Moore in her opinion. Justice Richard M. Aronson concurred, but said he “would expressly limit any familial right of privacy in death images to photographs taken during an autopsy or for the coroner at a cordoned-off accident scene, and which serve no newsworthy public interest.”The case is Catsouras v. California Highway Patrol, 10 S.O.S. 610.

 

 
Turkey blocking 3,700 websites

Milos Haraszti, media freedom monitor for the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said Turkey's Internet law was failing to preserve free expression in the country and should be changed or abolished.

"In its current form, Law 5651, commonly known as the Internet Law of Turkey, not only limits freedom of expression, but severely restricts citizens' right to access information," Haraszti said in a statement.

He said Turkey, a European Union candidate, was barring access to 3,700 Internet sites, including YouTube, GeoCities and some Google pages, because Ankara's Internet law was too broad and subject to political interests.

"Even as some of the content that is deemed 'bad', such as child pornography, must be sanctioned, the law is unfit to achieve this. Instead, by blocking access to entire websites from Turkey, it paralyzes access to numerous modern file-sharing or social networks," Haraszti said.

"Some of the official reasons to block the Internet are arbitrary and political, and therefore incompatible with OSCE's freedom of expression commitments," he said. Asked about the OSCE remarks, a Turkish transport and communications ministry official who asked not to be named told Reuters: "Turkey provides unlimited and equal access for all parts of society. It is above the EU average on this issue.

"The regulations over Internet have a dynamic structure and necessary legal changes are made when problems are detected in implementation," the official added.

Haraszti said Turkish law was still failing to safeguard freedom of expression, and numerous criminal code clauses were being used against journalists, who risked being sent to jail as a result.

Fears for press freedom in Turkey have risen following state attempts to collect a $3.3 billion fine from major media group Dogan in a tax row, part of pressure on Dogan to obey a law limiting foreign ownership of Turkish firms.

In October, the European Commission's annual report on Turkey's progress toward EU membership urged Turkey to treat Dogan fairly and said Ankara needed to do more to protect freedom of expression and the press.

 
FBI Broke Law for Years in Phone Record Searches

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.

The records seen by The Post do not reveal the identities of the people whose phone call records were gathered, but FBI officials said they thought that nearly all of the requests involved terrorism investigations.

FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni said in an interview Monday that the FBI technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records.

"We should have stopped those requests from being made that way," she said. The after-the-fact approvals were a "good-hearted but not well-thought-out" solution to put phone carriers at ease, she said. In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process. "What this turned out to be was a self-inflicted wound," she said.

Caproni said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III did not know about the problems until late 2006 or early 2007, after the inspector general's probe began.

Documents show that senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level approved the procedures for emergency requests of phone records and that headquarters officials often made the requests, which persisted for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes.

"We have to make sure we are not taking advantage of this system, and that we are following the letter of the law without jeopardizing national security," FBI lawyer Patrice Kopistansky wrote in one of a series of early 2005 e-mails asking superiors to address the problem.

The FBI acknowledged in 2007 that one unit in the agency had improperly gathered some phone records, and a Justice Department audit at the time cited 22 inappropriate requests to phone companies for searches and hundreds of questionable requests. But the latest revelations show that the improper requests were much more numerous under the procedures approved by the top level of the FBI.

FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.

Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.

Read more...