Georgia's CyberSafety Site

Caselaw

Privacy Protection Act

§ 5-1 Applicability

United States v. Hunter, 13 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Vt. 1998).
The defendant claimed that the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, prohibited a search of his computerized documents because he produces a public law journal from his law office. The court held that the PPA did not protect the defendant because "the government had reason to believe that he had committed a criminal offense … to which the seized materials related (referencing the exception to the PPA outlined at 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a)(1), (b)(1)).

top

§ 5-2 Attorney’s Fees

Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Minn. 1989).
Cases interpreting entitlement and reasonableness of attorney fee awards made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 "provide substantial guidance, if not binding authority" for awards under the PPA.

top

§ 5-3 Civil Actions

Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1997).
The PPA does not authorize suits against municipal officers or employees; only state officers / employees when the state has not waived sovereign immunity.

top

§ 5-4 Violations

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tex. 1993),
aff’d, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
Seizure of protected work product did not violate the PPA where agents did not reasonably believe at the time of seizure that SJG had a purpose to disseminate the materials to the public. However, agents did violate statute by failing to promptly return the materials upon obtaining this knowledge.

Lambert v. Polk County, 723 F. Supp. 128 (S.D. Iowa 1989).
There was no violation of the PPA where police officers took a citizen’s videotape of a crime when the officers had no reason to believe that the citizen’s purpose in creating the tape was to disseminate it to the public.

top

§ 5-5 Search Warrants

Citicasters v. McCaskill, 89 F.3d 1350 (8th Cir. 1996).
"The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) does not require that a search warrant application delineate the exceptions to the PPA which are applicable to the search and seizure of the premises and items sought in the warrant." Under the PPA, a search warrant does not have to describe exceptions to the Act which allow search and seizure of materials held by the media.

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978).
When a search of a third-party is conducted pursuant to a warrant, adequate safeguards exist within the warrant application and execution processes to protect the 1st Amendment interests of the press from undue interference. [This decision was the catalyst for the PPA.]

top

§ 5-6 Sovereign Immunity

Barnes v. Missouri, 960 F.2d 63 (8th Cir. 1992).
Missouri has not waived its 11th Amendment sovereign immunity in regard to suits in federal court under the PPA.

top

§ 5-7 Standing

Lambert v. Polk County, 723 F. Supp. 128 (S.D. Iowa 1989).
Where a citizen’s videotape (which he intended to sell to a television station) is taken by police officers and not returned, the citizen and not the television station is an "aggrieved person" under § 2000aa-6(a) of the PPA.

top

§ 5-8 Statute of Limitations

Powell v. Tordoff, 911 F. Supp. 1184 (N.D. Iowa 1995).
The state statute of limitations for tort or personal injury action was applied to a PPA action. The cause of action accrued at the time of the search and seizure.

top