Bertha Huff v. Carol Spaw, 794 F.3d 543

Background

Huff pocket-dialed Spaw while in Italy; Spaw overheard 91 minutes of Huff-Savage discussion and Bertha Huff’s later statements.
Spaw used her office phone and an iPhone to record the call and transcribed notes; she shared summaries and enhanced audio with Airport Board members.
Huffs sued Spaw for violating Title III by intercepting their oral communications, and for disclosure/use of intercepted content.
The district court granted summary judgment for Spaw, holding Huff had no reasonable expectation of privacy due to the pocket-dial, preventing protection under Title III.
On appeal, the court considers extraterritoriality and who had a protected oral communication; court ultimately remands with Bertha Huff’s protection recognized and James Huff’s not.
The overall posture involves determining whether the interception and use of communications occurred under Title III and whether the parties had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether James Huff’s pocket-dialed statements were protected oral communications under Title III	Huff exhibited an expectation of privacy and privacy was reasonable	Pocket-dial exposes statements to outsiders, defeating privacy	James Huff did not have a protected oral communication; Bertha Huff did not rely on Huff’s pocket-dial for privacy remaining valid
Whether Bertha Huff’s hotel-room statements were protected oral communications under Title III	Bertha had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her hotel-room conversation	Awareness that a device could intercept could negate privacy	Bertha Huff exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy; she is protected; remand to address Spaw’s intentional interception
Whether Spaw’s interception of Bertha Huff’s conversation was 'intentional interception' under Title III	Spaw used devices to intercept and record the conversation	Interception requires intentional use of a device to intercept; mere overhearing may not suffice	Remand to evaluate whether Spaw’s actions constitute intentional interception under Title III
Whether Title III applies extraterritorially to the pocket-dial occurred abroad	Title III should apply to any interception regardless of location	Statute generally has domestic application; extraterritoriality may bar claims	District court jurisdiction upheld; Title III applies where interception occurs via devices in U.S. context
Whether the Huffs’ claims survive given the district court’s summary judgment standard	There are genuine disputes of material fact	No genuine disputes; proper application of law	Court affirms some aspects and reverses others; remand for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable-expectation of privacy; Katz test framework)
Dorris v. Absher, 179 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 1999) (subjective vs objective components of privacy depending on context)
Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2001) (exhibited privacy and precautions; two-part inquiry)
McKamey v. Roach, 55 F.3d 1236 (6th Cir. 1995) ( cordless-phone privacy; exposure risk and expectation)
Boddie v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 731 F.2d 333 (6th Cir. 1984) (expectation of privacy in interviews despite known recording)
Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-view-like exposure doctrine in privacy expectations)
Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107 (1957) (interception concept under prior statute; scope broadened by Title III)
Williams v. State, 507 P.2d 1339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) (interception require not just line interference; proximity and recording matters)
McCann v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital, 622 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2010) (covert recording can violate Title III regardless of line interference)