News Archives

As we previously mentioned, the U.S. Supreme Court is making a note to keep up in the era of constantly changing technology. This past week, the Supreme Court ruled on U.S. v. Jones that law enforcement’s warrantless installation and use of a GPA device to track a suspect’s vehicle is a violation of privacy rights that are protected by the 4^th Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote, “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the 4thAmendment when it was adopted.” This debate will continue to mark the transition of the courts into a world where technology is rapidly evolving and while these steps have been taken, legislatures may be slow to act and instead need to react by doing a much needed modernized overhaul of the laws that are meant to provide guidance to us all. Until that day, the best solution to privacy concerns would be to apply the “reasonable person” standard. Under that standard, short-term monitoring on public streets is reasonable, but long-term monitoring might be a violation of privacy. 

A groom is suing his photographer from his wedding because the photographers missed the last dance and the bouquet toss. The groom is demanding to be repaid the original cost of the photography which was $4,100 in addition to another $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding along with flying the wedding party to New Year for the ceremony. Even though this wedding was six years ago (yes, six!) and the couple is divorced, Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan is allowing the case to proceed to determine whether there was in fact a breach of contract. However, she did dismiss most of the grounds for the lawsuit like the “infliction of emotional distress.” The judge wrote that “this is a case in which it appears that the ‘misty watercolor memories’ and the ‘scattered pictures of the smiles…left behind’ at the wedding were more important than the real thing.” The case is still pending to see whether the plaintiff’s “fury over the quality of the photographs” will be resolved.

Make it a point to watch Terry Sullivan tomorrow as he covers the recently decided issue of allowing cameras in the courtrooms. What will these technological advances mean in the law field?

The City of Chicago used its “home-rule power” to try to force internet auction ticket services, such as “Stub Hub”, to collect city taxes from the people who bought the re-sold tickets. Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote for the Illinois Supreme Court recently and found that the state legislature required the “auctioneers” to commit to consumer protection…” and in exchange , allowed them to skirt the ban on scalping and, more importantly, the tax collection obligation…” Bottom line: “the City overstepped its home rule authority.”

Illinois is the only state that still grants privacy protection to police officers in the line of their public duty (Eavesdropping Act). A man in Boston used his cell phone to film police officers making an arrest; he was charged with disturbing the peace and other charges. He sued for Freedom of Speech violations. A Federal Appeals Court recently found that the man was “unambiguously” exercising his First Amendment rights in filming government officials performing duties in a public place. The Court further said that private individuals should be allowed wide berth to gather information on public officials, similar to the media.

The Tennis Channel, in what was deemed to be a brave move, sued Comcast, claiming it gave its own networks better channel listings and assigned independent Tennis to a channel listing far from the other sports channels. In an eight-day discrimination trial, a Federal Communications Commission judge agreed and ordered Comcast to correct the channel listing and pay a penalty of $375,000.

Be sure to watch Terry Sullivan on WGN news at 11:30 and noon today.