Emily Soule
Dietemann v. Time, Inc. 449 F.2d 245 (1971)
Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts:
Dietemann v Time Inc. is a case of invasion of privacy. Life magazine was doing an investigation for their magazine on supposed “quack doctors” that were practicing medicine illegally.Dietemann was featured in a Life Magazine story in which he was depicted to be a “quack” medical professional. In order to gain material for the article, the defendants (employees of Life Magazine) entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Under this agreement, the defendants collaborated with the Attorney General’s office to research and collect evidence concerning different doctor’s unlicensed medical practices. In …show more content…
Under this semblance, they gained entrance to the Dietemann’s home, which was also his office. While there, they photographed the doctor without his consent and recorded his voice as he gave a medical diagnosis to one of the undercover patients. The resulting Life Magazine article featured photographs that were taken without Dietemann’s consent and knowledge, as well as quotes that were recorded. Dietemann sued, alleging invasion of privacy. Time argued that they are afforded greater freedom as members of the press, and that they were acting in cooperation with the Attorney General’s office (after gaining permission prior to the fake appointment). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California state law, the cause of action for invasion of privacy was established on proof that defendant's (Time Inc.) employees, by trick, gained entrance to the office part of plaintiff's (Dietemann) home where they then proceeded to photographed him and electronically record and transmit information to third party persons his conversation without his consent as result of which he suffered emotional distress. The fact that the acts
Dietemann v. Time, Inc. 449 F.2d 245 (1971)
Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts:
Dietemann v Time Inc. is a case of invasion of privacy. Life magazine was doing an investigation for their magazine on supposed “quack doctors” that were practicing medicine illegally.Dietemann was featured in a Life Magazine story in which he was depicted to be a “quack” medical professional. In order to gain material for the article, the defendants (employees of Life Magazine) entered into an agreement with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Under this agreement, the defendants collaborated with the Attorney General’s office to research and collect evidence concerning different doctor’s unlicensed medical practices. In …show more content…
Under this semblance, they gained entrance to the Dietemann’s home, which was also his office. While there, they photographed the doctor without his consent and recorded his voice as he gave a medical diagnosis to one of the undercover patients. The resulting Life Magazine article featured photographs that were taken without Dietemann’s consent and knowledge, as well as quotes that were recorded. Dietemann sued, alleging invasion of privacy. Time argued that they are afforded greater freedom as members of the press, and that they were acting in cooperation with the Attorney General’s office (after gaining permission prior to the fake appointment). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California state law, the cause of action for invasion of privacy was established on proof that defendant's (Time Inc.) employees, by trick, gained entrance to the office part of plaintiff's (Dietemann) home where they then proceeded to photographed him and electronically record and transmit information to third party persons his conversation without his consent as result of which he suffered emotional distress. The fact that the acts