Incriminating photos - violation of privacy?

[charlieasha]

Jurisdiction

California

Hello! If someone posts, sends, or publishes a photo of someone in a private residence in California doing something illegal (such as drugs), is this considered a violation of privacy? Is this grounds for a lawsuit?

 

[army judge]

Hello! If someone posts, sends, or publishes a photo of someone in a private residence in California doing something illegal (such as drugs), is this considered a violation of privacy? Is this grounds for a lawsuit?

Hmm, what you describe doesn't appear to be "doxing", which might be illegal:
...
...
The Illegal Activity of "Doxing": Revealing "documents or personal information" about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk….
...
...

What you described was perhaps a person shooting "horse" or "G" in private residence in CA and another person in the residence took photos or video of the "action", subsequently posting the video somewhere on the wild, wild, wide-open, anything goes internet in the state of CA.

I don't see such activity as illegal.

In the future, do whatever it is you do only in the presence of trusted associates, or associates who have been frisked and allowed onto the premises if they are absent weapons or electronic devices.

That's how them "gangstas", "rappers", "celebrities", and "politicians" roll, el jefe.

Additoinal reading:
...
...
Social Networking Web Sites and Crimes - Lawyers.com
...
...

 

[charlieasha]

Hmm, what you describe doesn't appear to be "doxing", which might be illegal:
...
...
The Illegal Activity of "Doxing": Revealing "documents or personal information" about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk….
...
...

What you described was perhaps a person shooting "horse" or "G" in private residence in CA and another person in the residence took photos or video of the "action", subsequently posting the video somewhere on the wild, wild, wide-open, anything goes internet in the state of CA.

I don't see such activity as illegal.

In the future, do whatever it is you do only in the presence of trusted associates, or associates who have been frisked and allowed onto the premises if they are absent weapons or electronic devices.

That's how them "gangstas", "rappers", "celebrities", and "politicians" roll, el jefe.

Additoinal reading:
...
...
Social Networking Web Sites and Crimes - Lawyers.com
...

Hmm, what you describe doesn't appear to be "doxing", which might be illegal:
...
...
The Illegal Activity of "Doxing": Revealing "documents or personal information" about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk….
...
...

What you described was perhaps a person shooting "horse" or "G" in private residence in CA and another person in the residence took photos or video of the "action", subsequently posting the video somewhere on the wild, wild, wide-open, anything goes internet in the state of CA.

I don't see such activity as illegal.

In the future, do whatever it is you do only in the presence of trusted associates, or associates who have been frisked and allowed onto the premises if they are absent weapons or electronic devices.

That's how them "gangstas", "rappers", "celebrities", and "politicians" roll, el jefe.

Additoinal reading:
...
...
Social Networking Web Sites and Crimes - Lawyers.com
...
...

...

I read that you can't take photos of someone on private property with our their consent.

 

[charlieasha]

I read the following pertaining to California law. Doesn't this apply to the situation?

"You may be liable for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts if you publish information that is:

• so personal and intimate that its disclosure would offend a reasonable person, even if the information is wholly true;
  
  
• not generally known to the public;
  
  
• not newsworthy; and
  
  
• widely communicated, keeping in mind that publication through e-mail could qualify as such."
  

 

[army judge]

I read the following pertaining to California law. Doesn't this apply to the situation?

"You may be liable for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts if you publish information that is:

• so personal and intimate that its disclosure would offend a reasonable person, even if the information is wholly true;
  
  
• not generally known to the public;
  
  
• not newsworthy; and
  
  
• widely communicated, keeping in mind that publication through e-mail could qualify as such."
  

Why waste your time convincing me?

If you believe that applies to YOUR situation, tell it to your county prosecutor, district attorney, or the local police or sheriff.

In fact, if you believe the above information exculpates ILLEGAL activity, and declares all illicit acts as NOT NEWSWORTHY, hire yourself a lawyer and sue the pants off of the photographer.

Good luck.

 

[charlieasha]

That is what my question is. Is someone smoking pot out of a bong considered newsworthy in the legal arena?

 

[mightymoose]

The manner in which the photo was obtained would be critical here. The publishing of the photo isn't necessarily a problem if obtained through legitimate means. Even then, I believe this would only be a civil claim, not a criminal one.

 

[charlieasha]

The manner in which the photo was obtained would be critical here. The publishing of the photo isn't necessarily a problem if obtained through legitimate means. Even then, I believe this would only be a civil claim, not a criminal one.

Thank you, Mighty Moose. To provide more detail, the picture was taken by someone else inside the private residence to later use as blackmail material, without the subject knowing or consenting to the photograph.

 

[mightymoose]

That is what my question is. Is someone smoking pot out of a bong considered newsworthy in the legal arena?

Unless the person in the photo can prove damages of defamation this isn't worth the time to consider.

 

[mightymoose]

Thank you, Mighty Moose. To provide more detail, the picture was taken by someone else inside the private residence to later use as blackmail material, without the subject knowing or consenting to the photograph.

It doesn't really matter if the other person knew of the photo. Was the person who took the photo lawfully present in the residence to observe this? If so. case closed... UNLESS they can prove damages for defamation. In many cases this is unlikely. It may be embarrassing, but not illegal. Be more careful who is invited into the home.

 

[army judge]

Truth is an indisputable defense to defamation.
If the photographer had "photoshopped" Benny's head over Billy's depicting Benny as "slaying that dragon", that's defamatory.

If the photographer simply snapped and published Benny "slaying the dragon", that's the truth. Truth can be embarrassing, but its never actionable per se.

As suggested, frisk your guests, ban all electronic devices to prevent reoccurrences.

Or, "slay that dragon" alone, in the complete, secure, safe privacy of your home!!

 

[cynthiag]

Isn't recreational pot use legal in California?

 

[army judge]

Isn't recreational pot use legal in California?

I know in CO it is.

Even if it were in CA, the one "slaying the dragon" or "chasing the dragon" in some circles, might not want to be depicted with his/her lips wrapped around a glass pipe, huffing and puffilng like The Big Bad Wolf.

The person might be a teacher, a Rabbi, an Imam, a Pastor, an elected official, a police officer, an attorney, a teacher, an active duty military member, or any other well respected community member.

Dirty, naughty, filthy little secrets always struggle to become known.

 

[cynthiag]

True, I was just curious because the OP said "doing something illegal (such as drugs)" and then mentioned they were directly referring to smoking pot out of a bong. So while there may be a wide assortment of reasons you wouldn't want something like that out there for all to see, it doesn't fall under the category of "illegal drugs" any longer.

I checked it out, and California did legalize in November 2016, along with several other states, and following Washington, Colorado, Alaska & Oregon.

 

[army judge]

True, I was just curious because the OP said "doing something illegal (such as drugs)" and then mentioned they were directly referring to smoking pot out of a bong. So while there may be a wide assortment of reasons you wouldn't want something like that out there for all to see, it doesn't fall under the category of "illegal drugs" any longer.

I checked it out, and California did legalize in November 2016, along with several other states, and following Washington, Colorado, Alaska & Oregon.

Its been my experience as a defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge that where there's "weed", that's not the only substance used.

Besides, someone depicted huffing and puffing on that glass pipe, doesn't mean that ONLY "weed" can be inhaled.

I suppose one might have many reasons why he or she wouldn't want to be seen on social media "slaying the dragon".

 

[ElleMD]

Michael Phelps learned this one the hard way. It would be illegal to sneak up to the windows of a private residence and take pictures through the blinds. It is not illegal to take pictures inside a residence of whomever and whatever happen to be there, if both parties are permitted to be there.

The use of drugs is not the sort of personal information which would give rise to a privacy claim. If someone disclosed the other party was HIV positive, that is different.