James Eric McDonough v. Katherine Fernandez-Rundle
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12419
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- McDonough lodged complaints about an HPD officer; Chief Alexander Rolle invited him to a meeting at the Homestead Police Department to discuss those complaints.
- McDonough placed his cell phone in plain view and recorded part of the meeting without the chief’s knowledge; portions were later posted online.
- Miami‑Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez‑Rundle sent McDonough a letter warning that his recording violated Florida’s Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.03) and threatened felony prosecution if he recorded again.
- McDonough sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statute did not apply to him and, alternatively, was unconstitutional as applied (First Amendment).
- The district court granted the State Attorney’s motion for summary judgment, applying nonpublic‑forum First Amendment analysis because the recording occurred inside a police station.
- The Eleventh Circuit reverses on statutory grounds: it holds § 934.03 does not apply because (1) no participant exhibited a privacy expectation as required by § 934.02 and (2) the meeting fell within the statute’s “public meeting” exception; the court avoids the First Amendment question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (wiretap statute) applies to McDonough’s recording | McDonough: statute does not apply because no unlawful interception occurred and/or exceptions apply | Fernandez‑Rundle: recording violated § 934.03; prosecution threatened appropriately | Held: § 934.03 does not apply — no exhibited expectation of privacy and meeting falls within "public meeting" exception |
| Whether the State Attorney’s threat caused a justiciable injury (standing) | McDonough: letter chilled his speech and exposed him to prosecution, giving standing | Fernandez‑Rundle: argued lack of standing (district court addressed differently) | Held: McDonough has standing — credible threat of prosecution and chill on speech |
| Proper legal basis for decision: statutory interpretation v. First Amendment analysis | McDonough: sought resolution of both statutory and constitutional claims; preferred statutory resolution if possible | Fernandez‑Rundle: district court used First Amendment nonpublic‑forum analysis to uphold restrictions | Held: Court decides statutory question and avoids First Amendment issue under avoidance principles |
| Whether recording in a police chief’s office is a nonpublic forum permitting viewpoint‑neutral restrictions | McDonough: recording is protected or statute inapplicable; forum status irrelevant if statute doesn’t apply | Fernandez‑Rundle: police station is a nonpublic forum; restrictions on covert recording are reasonable and viewpoint neutral | Held: Court did not reach forum analysis for constitutional protection because statute does not apply; thus restrictions under § 934.03 are inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (forum analysis and reasonableness/viewpoint neutrality standard)
- State v. Inciarrano, 473 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1985) (reasonable expectation of privacy requires subjective and societal recognition)
- Dept. of Ag. & Consumer Servs. v. Edwards, 654 So.2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (multiple participants undermine reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (federal courts should not instruct state officials on state law in a way that intrudes on state sovereignty)
- BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 252 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal courts should avoid constitutional questions when an adequate nonconstitutional ground exists)