Gennusa v. Shoar
879 F. Supp. 2d 1337
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- Gennusa and Studivant allege Fourth Amendment and Wiretap Act violations by Marmo, Canova, and Sheriff Shoar arising from an interview in a St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office room where recording occurred without disclosure.
- Gennusa attended as Studivant’s attorney; the interview was recorded and monitored, but plaintiffs were not informed.
- Marmo forcibly retrieved Studivant’s written statement from Gennusa’s hands, leading to Studivant’s arrest; Canova supervised the officers.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint; the court granted leave to replead and set cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court finds most arguments unopposed, deems many issues conceded, and resolves the case on disputed, material legal questions.
- The court later grants partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on some counts and for Sheriff Shoar on others, and schedules settlement discussions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marmo’s seizure of the statement violated the Fourth Amendment | Gennusa and Studivant contend per se unreasonableness without a warrant | Marmo’s conduct was de minimis or reasonable force | Unreasonable seizure; no warrant or applicable exception; summary judgment for plaintiffs on Counts II, III |
| Whether recording attorney-client communications violated the Fourth Amendment and Wiretap Act | Attorney-client communications are protected; private expectation of privacy existed | Privacy was not reasonable; rights not clearly established | Plaintiffs entitled to summary judgment on Counts I and V; recording violated rights and rights were clearly established; no qualified immunity |
| Whether Sheriff Shoar's policy/supporting custom caused municipal liability under §1983 | County policy/custom caused the violation; deliberate indifference shown | Policy not shown to violate federal law; no demonstrable custom; Sheriff not liable | Summary judgment for Sheriff Shoar on Counts IV, VI; no municipal liability established |
| Whether Counts VII and VIII (meeting-room recordings) survived | Recording in other rooms violated privacy rights | Rooms had no audio; no violation | Summary judgment for Shoar on Counts VII, VIII |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 384 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy applies to recordings)
- Horton v. California, 492 U.S. 128 (1990) (per se unreasonableness of warrantless searches/seizures)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (seizure of property requires consideration of possessory interests)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established rights may apply despite lack of identical facts)
- Lonegan v. Hasty, 436 F. Supp. 2d 412 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (attorney-client communications privileged in prison contexts)
- DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir. 1985) (attorney-client privilege creates privacy expectation)