In re M.H. CA4/1
1 Cal. App. 5th 699
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- 16‑year‑old M.H. used his smartphone to secretly record a 10‑second video in a high‑school bathroom showing a student (Matthew) from about 16–25 feet away; the video captured Matthew’s distinctive socks/shoes and audible moaning but not his face.
- M.H. uploaded the video to his Snapchat "story" captioned that the student was masturbating; Snapchat stories disappear after 24 hours.
- After the video circulated at school, Matthew committed suicide about two weeks later; the causal link to the video was not litigated here.
- The San Diego County DA filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging violation of Penal Code § 647(j)(1) (unauthorized invasion of privacy by camera); the juvenile court found the allegation true and placed M.H. on probation with social‑media restrictions.
- On appeal M.H. argued (1) insufficient evidence of intent to invade privacy because Matthew had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the stall, (2) § 647(j)(1) incorporates civil invasion‑of‑privacy tort elements (including a newsworthiness defense), and (3) the statute as applied violated his First Amendment rights.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding a restroom stall occupant has a reasonable expectation not to be secretly recorded and that M.H. forfeited the tort‑incorporation and First Amendment arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (M.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports conviction under § 647(j)(1) | Recording and dissemination of a person in a bathroom stall violates § 647(j)(1); court may infer requisite intent from conduct | No reasonable expectation of privacy because feet visible under stall and moaning audible; thus insufficient evidence of intent to invade privacy | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding; occupants reasonably expect not to be secretly recorded and widely disseminated |
| Whether § 647(j)(1) incorporates civil invasion‑of‑privacy tort elements (and a newsworthiness defense) | Statute criminalizes intent to invade privacy; but does not import civil tort elements or defenses | § 647(j)(1) should incorporate tort elements; the recording was newsworthy/public interest | Forfeited on appeal because defense counsel took contrary position below; on merits statute’s language and legislative history do not incorporate tort elements |
| Whether § 647(j)(1) violates First Amendment as applied | N/A (People opposed) | Recording was news gathering about matters of public interest; statute is overbroad/violates free speech | Forfeited because not raised below; court declined to exercise discretion to consider it on appeal due to factbound dispute |
| Scope of reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall | Restroom stalls afford a protected privacy interest against secret recording and dissemination | If conduct can be seen/heard from common areas, no reasonable expectation of privacy | Held: expectation can be limited but remains reasonable against secret electronic recording; prior precedents support protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Shulman v. Group W Prods., 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998) (privacy includes control over dissemination of images and communications)
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, 47 Cal.4th 272 (2009) (hidden cameras are particularly intrusive; mere visibility to some does not waive broader privacy interests)
- Sanders v. Am. Broad. Cos., 20 Cal.4th 907 (1999) (secret electronic recording can violate privacy even when conversations could be overheard)
- Britt v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 469 (1962) (occupant of public restroom stall has a reasonable expectation of privacy against secret observation)
- People v. Triggs, 8 Cal.3d 884 (1973) (expectation of privacy exists even if stall interior might be open to view from accessible areas)
- Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (describes the four common‑law privacy torts; shows "invasion of privacy" is an umbrella term)