[Politech] Federal appeals court says don't wiretap your spouse [priv]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 20:23:51 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] EFF's Brad Templeton explains position on RIAA, copyright [ip]"

    ELISABETH GLAZNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES GLAZNER, 
    Defendant-Appellee.
    
    No. 02-11799
    
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    
    2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21014
    
    October 16, 2003, Decided
    October 16, 2003, Filed
    
    After being married 19 years, James Glazner ("James") filed for divorce 
    against his wife, Elisabeth Glazner ("Elisabeth"). During the divorce 
    proceedings, James put a recording device on a telephone in the marital 
    home. The device recorded a number of conversations between Elisabeth and 
    third parties without the consent of any party to the conversations. 
    Elisabeth discovered the device and filed a complaint in the United States 
    District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against James seeking 
    damages as a result of an alleged violation [*3]  of Title III, and damages 
    for a number of state law claims.
    
    Elisabeth based her federal claim on the wiretapping provisions of Title 
    III, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22. HN2Parts of that law prohibit non-consensual 
    recordings of private conversations, subject to certain specified 
    exceptions, and authorize civil remedies on behalf of those who suffer 
    violations of the statutory provisions. During the course of the 
    litigation, James filed a motion for summary judgment. Notwithstanding a 
    finding by the district court that James wiretapped Elisabeth's 
    conversations with third parties, the district court granted James's motion 
    for summary judgment based on Simpson, which read an interspousal exemption 
    into the provisions of Title III. The district court dismissed Elisabeth's 
    state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
    
    Elisabeth filed a timely notice of appeal of the district court's judgment. 
    Even though the panel opinion was critical of the Simpson decision and 
    concluded that it should be overruled, the panel recognized that HN3under 
    the prior panel precedent rule, the panel was bound to follow the Simpson 
    decision unless and [*4]  until it was overruled by this court sitting en 
    banc or by the Supreme Court. See Saxton v. ACF Indus., Inc., 254 F.3d 959, 
    960 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 
    n.8 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th 
    Cir. 1998) (en banc). Based on Simpson, the panel decision affirmed the 
    district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of James. We 
    subsequently entered an order granting Elisabeth's petition for rehearing 
    and vacating the panel opinion. See Glazner, 321 F.3d at 1336.
    
    ...
    
    For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Simpson and hold that no 
    interspousal wiretapping exception exists in Title III. We also hold that 
    this new rule abolishing the interspousal exception in Simpson applies 
    retroactively. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of 
    James's motion for summary judgment and REMAND this case for further 
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    _______________________________________________
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 20:36:51 PST