A jury may find that Lancaster intruded on Barrone’s seclusion. Barrone attempted to seclude himself behind a sheet and wall in a public alley. Lancaster used a high zoom lens to intentionally take a naked picture of Barrone and intruded on his seclusion. A reasonable person would be highly offended if another person takes a naked picture of them when they believe to be secluded. Intrusion on seclusion has three elements in Pennsylvania: a person must (1) intentionally and substantially intrude, physically or otherwise, (2) upon the seclusion of another’s private affairs or concerns (3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A person must subjectively believe their activity is private and that society would objectively believe
…show more content…
It may be argued that a person is not invading somebody’s privacy when the information revealed is not private such as in Tagouma, Boring or Harris. Nonetheless as established in Graham, when a person unreasonably interferes and exhibits intimate details of another person life without their consent, they can be liable for intrusion on seclusion. Therefore, Lancaster can be liable for intrusion on seclusion because she unreasonably interferes by going up to the top of a building and using a high zoom lens to take a picture of intimate details about Barrone. Barrone took steps to make a public place private by using a sheet and Joe as a lookout for somebody who could walk down the alley. Barrone saw the apartment building, but because it was 300 yards away, he did not think anybody could see him from the windows. A reasonable person would also believe an apartment building dweller would not be able to view a person behind a sheet three football fields away. In Doe, there is an expectation of privacy in public spaces when the information is deeply personal, but the court allowed the jury to decide the question of substantial intrusion and the level of offensiveness to a reasonable person. A jury for Barrone’s case would be likely to find a naked picture taken in public when attempting to seclude oneself as highly offensive to a reasonable person. In Boyertown School District, the court did not find objective reasonableness in the claim of intrusion on seclusion because the majority of the student population did not object. Nonetheless, most people would find a naked picture highly unreasonable. In Wolfson, intrusion on seclusion was not protected under the First Amendment because the actions were highly unreasonable and intrusive with the use of electronic means. Lancaster’s use of a high zoom lens to
It may be argued that a person is not invading somebody’s privacy when the information revealed is not private such as in Tagouma, Boring or Harris. Nonetheless as established in Graham, when a person unreasonably interferes and exhibits intimate details of another person life without their consent, they can be liable for intrusion on seclusion. Therefore, Lancaster can be liable for intrusion on seclusion because she unreasonably interferes by going up to the top of a building and using a high zoom lens to take a picture of intimate details about Barrone. Barrone took steps to make a public place private by using a sheet and Joe as a lookout for somebody who could walk down the alley. Barrone saw the apartment building, but because it was 300 yards away, he did not think anybody could see him from the windows. A reasonable person would also believe an apartment building dweller would not be able to view a person behind a sheet three football fields away. In Doe, there is an expectation of privacy in public spaces when the information is deeply personal, but the court allowed the jury to decide the question of substantial intrusion and the level of offensiveness to a reasonable person. A jury for Barrone’s case would be likely to find a naked picture taken in public when attempting to seclude oneself as highly offensive to a reasonable person. In Boyertown School District, the court did not find objective reasonableness in the claim of intrusion on seclusion because the majority of the student population did not object. Nonetheless, most people would find a naked picture highly unreasonable. In Wolfson, intrusion on seclusion was not protected under the First Amendment because the actions were highly unreasonable and intrusive with the use of electronic means. Lancaster’s use of a high zoom lens to