Koeppel v. Speirs

808 N.W.2d 177 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was an insurance agent for an insurance company. D employed P and Deanna Miller to assist him in his business. The office included a reception area, an office occupied by D, and a small unisex bathroom. The bathroom contained a sink, toilet, and black floor shelf. The shelf had a hollow rectangular base and was positioned between the sink and the toilet. D noticed Miller's work performance had deteriorated. D decided to monitor Miller's activities at work using a hidden camera. D purchased a security camera, monitor, videocassette recorder (VCR), and videotape. The camera was powered by a nine-volt battery and functioned independently of the receiver and monitor. When the camera was switched on, it would send radio wave signals to the receiver corresponding to the images captured by the camera. The receiver, in turn, sent the images to the monitor for viewing. The receiver, monitor, and VCR were located in D's office. The battery only had a lifespan of a few hours. D installed the camera in the reception area of the office. He did not observe any misconduct by Miller and removed the camera. D claimed he was never able to record the camera images with the VCR. On December 26, D claimed he found a hypodermic needle in the office parking lot near the spot Miller parked her car. D installed the camera inside the hollow base of the shelf in the bathroom. D claimed the equipment did not operate after he placed the camera in the bathroom. The monitor in his office produced only static or, at other times, displayed a 'no signal' message. D claimed he unhooked the monitor and receiver and put them in his desk drawer. D left the camera in the bathroom and claimed he intended to remove it before P and Miller arrived at work the following day. P discovered the camera in the bathroom. She took photographs of the scene and reported her discovery to the police. The photographs showed the camera angle pointing towards the toilet in the bathroom. The camera was found in the bathroom but was inoperable due to a dead battery. The investigating officers replaced the battery in the camera, assembled the equipment, and attempted to operate the monitoring system. They eventually observed a 'snowy, grainy, foggy' image on the screen of either the legs or arms of the investigating officer who was inside the bathroom. This image appeared only briefly before the monitor displayed a 'no signal' message. P sued D for invasion of privacy and sexual harassment. D moved for summary judgment on the invasion-of-privacy claim. The trial court granted the motion in that the tort of invasion of privacy required proof the equipment had worked and D had viewed Ps. The court of appeals reversed and P appealed.