No Right of Privacy Even After Person Reforms

For those convicted of a crime, there is no privacy regardless of how long ago the crime was committed.

The California Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit for invasion of privacy against Discovery Communications, Inc. brought after the production and broadcast in 2001 of a television show depicting the plaintiff as an accessory to a murder for hire.

Steve Gates, the plaintiff, had plead guilty in 1992 to being an accessory after the fact to a murder for hire that occurred in 1988. He served his three year prison term and since had lived an obscure, lawful life and had become a respected member of the community. Gates contended that he was damaged by the revelation of his guilty plea and the airing of his photograph during the telecast.

The defendants contended he was a limited-purpose public figure. The California court agreed with the defendants and found that the broadcast was based on public court information. By doing so, the court reversed its 1971 holding in Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 4 Cal.3d 529, where the court held that action invasion of privacy may occur through the reckless, offensive, injurious publication of true, but not newsworthy, information concerning the criminal past of a rehabilitated convict. Upon reviewing United States Supreme Court cases since 1971, the California Supreme Court found “an invasion of privacy claim based on allegations of harm caused by a media defendant’s publication of facts obtained from public official records of a criminal proceeding is barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Steve Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., filed Dec. 6, 2004.