794 N.W.2d 842
Mich.2011Background
- This Michigan Supreme Court order addresses the eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539a et seq., as applied to a videotaped private conversation amid a high-profile backstage setting.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants secretly taped and used portions of the conversation in a concert-tour DVD, claiming invasion of privacy and eavesdropping.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals had various dispositions over ten years of litigation, with the Court of Appeals reversing on the eavesdropping claim.
- The Supreme Court reverses in part and reinstates the Wayne Circuit Court’s summary disposition order, limiting review to the remaining eavesdropping claim.
- A key issue is whether plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the recorded conversation, given the backstage location, numerous people present, and concurrent filming.
- The majority concludes no reasonable juror could find a private conversation under the statute, while a dissenting judge would affirm that material facts exist for privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the conversation a private conversation under MCL 750.539c? | Bowens contends material facts show a reasonable expectation of privacy. | Defendants argue surrounding factors eliminate a private conversation as a matter of law. | No genuine issue of material fact; conversation not private. |
| Do backstage setting and presence of others defeat privacy as a matter of law? | Facts show several people could listen and cameras were present, implying no privacy. | Presence of some people and controlled access does not automatically negate privacy; context matters. | Majority finds these factors support no privacy; jurors could not find private conversation. |
| Are there material facts that would require a jury to decide privacy under the statute? | There are disputed facts about filming and consent to privacy. | The record demonstrates no reasonable expectation of privacy as a matter of law. | Court held no material fact issue; summary disposition appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Stone, 463 Mich 558 (2001) (privacy expectation generally fact-specific; discretion to determine private conversation)
- Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368 (1993) (summary disposition standard; give reasonable doubt to opposing party)
- Dickerson v Raphael, 461 Mich 851 (1999) (privacy expectations; factors for reasonable expectation)