Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LAWRENCE H. GILL 413 NORTH CREEK DRIVE v. ROBERT E

January 16, 1980

LAWRENCE H. GILL 413 North Creek Drive, Depew, New York 14043, Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT EDWARD WILLER 2025 Bush Road, Grand Island, New York 14072, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CURTIN

This is an action for damages which alleges the willful interception, disclosure and use of telephone conversations in violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he placed numerous telephone calls to defendant's wife while she was at home at 2025 Bush Road, Grand Island, New York. The complaint further alleges that on numerous occasions defendant affixed or caused to be affixed a device which intercepted and recorded conversations between plaintiff and defendant's wife, as a result of which plaintiff has been injured. Plaintiff also claims that defendant has played the tape recordings before other persons for the purpose of ridiculing him. Finally, plaintiff asserts that defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Penal Law of the State of New York. Defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant has violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). This provision decrees that

 
(1) Except as otherwise Specifically provided in this chapter Any person who
 
(a) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire or oral communication;
 
(d) willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subsection;
 
shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 (Emphasis supplied). The Act also authorizes recovery of civil damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides in relevant part:

 
Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall (1) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications, and (2) be entitled to recover from any such person
 
(a) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $ 100 a day for each day of violation or $ 1,000, whichever is higher;
 
(b) punitive damages; and
 
(c) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

 Plaintiff brings his action pursuant to this authorization.

 Defendant's motion to dismiss asserts that the provisions of the Act set out above do not proscribe the electronic interception by a husband of his wife's conversations with a third party. This assertion appears to contradict the clear meaning of § 2511(1)(a) which is to prohibit the interception of All wire communications by Any person except as specifically provided in the Act. Moreover, § 2520 provides a cause of action to any person who is the victim of a violation of § 2511(1)(a). The definition of "person" contained in the Act includes "any individual." 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6). Under this plain reading of the statute, plaintiff's allegations would sufficiently state a claim so as to survive a motion to dismiss.

 In spite of the clear language of the statute, defendant is not without authority for his position. He relies principally on two cases, Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897, 95 S. Ct. 176, 42 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1974), and Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1977). In Simpson, a defendant husband attached a wiretapping device to his family phone and intercepted his wife's telephone conversations. He then used the intercepted information to obtain a divorce. The Fifth Circuit held that the Act does not proscribe the interception by one spouse of the other's telephone conversations in the marital home. In Anonymous, a defendant allegedly had intercepted and taped telephone conversations between his daughter and plaintiff, his ex-wife. The court defined the issue as requiring resolution of the point "interspousal wiretaps leave the province of mere marital disputes, a matter left to the states, and rise to the level of criminal conduct proscribed by the federal wiretap statutes." Anonymous, supra, at 677. The Second Circuit held that since a purely domestic conflict was involved, in which only the conversations between a mother and daughter were intercepted by a husband, the particular facts of that case did not rise to a violation of the Act. In so holding, the court relied on what has been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.