2018 Ohio 4423
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Richard Moran alleged defendant Michael Lewis, a private investigator, attached GPS devices to two of Moran’s vehicles and tracked their movements on public roads.
- Moran claimed the GPS installation violated his right to privacy and constituted trespass; he sought to treat attachment/tracking as a per se invasion of privacy.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Lewis; Moran appealed the dismissal of his invasion-of-privacy claim.
- The appellate court reviewed the Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Moran’s favor.
- The court framed Ohio invasion-of-privacy law by Housh v. Peth: actionable invasion includes (1) appropriation, (2) publicizing private affairs, or (3) wrongful intrusion into private activities/seclusion causing offense.
- The court held Moran failed to plead an intrusion into seclusion or disclosure of private facts from the GPS monitoring of public movements, so the complaint did not state an invasion-of-privacy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking its movement on public roads is a per se invasion of privacy | Moran: attachment/tracking is prima facie invasion; motorists have expectation of privacy on public roads | Lewis: Attachment and monitoring of public movements do not, without more, intrude into seclusion or private affairs | Held: No; attachment/tracking alone is not a per se invasion under Ohio law; complaint failed to plead intrusion into seclusion |
| Whether Jones (GPS by police) creates a private tort right to privacy for GPS tracking by citizens | Moran: Jones supports recognizing expectation-of-privacy in vehicle movements | Lewis: Jones did not rely on Katz expectation-of-privacy analysis and does not create private tort liability | Held: Jones does not establish a private civil invasion-of-privacy claim for GPS tracking; it does not expand Housh |
| Whether a bad-faith/corrupt-motive standard (per Sustin) applies to private actors | Moran: any bad-faith attachment should be actionable regardless of public/private movements | Lewis: Sustin applies to public officials to avoid immunity, not to private investigators | Held: Sustin does not create a new standard for private-party invasion claims; Housh elements control |
| Whether the complaint adequately alleged elements required by Ohio law for intrusion upon seclusion | Moran: alleged deceptive installation, lack of consent, continuous recording, and concealment | Lewis: Allegations do not show intrusion into a private place or disclosure of private facts; monitoring was of public movements | Held: Insufficient; complaint lacked allegations of intrusion into private seclusion or highly offensive conduct necessary under Housh |
Key Cases Cited
- Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35 (1956) (sets Ohio invasion-of-privacy categories, including intrusion into seclusion)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS placement by police implicated Fourth Amendment trespass; did not adopt expectation-of-privacy analysis for this context)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy framework referenced but not applied in Jones)
- Sustin v. Fee, 69 Ohio St.2d 143 (1982) (clarifies pleading requirement of bad faith for claims against public officials; does not change private-party standard)
- Pollock v. Rashid, 117 Ohio App.3d 361 (1996) (recognizes no liability for observing/recording a person in a public place absent private-seclusion intrusion)
- Villanova v. Innovative Investigations, Inc., 420 N.J. Super. 353 (2011) (no invasion found where GPS tracking did not show vehicle entering private areas or disclose private facts)