FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 50 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 80 81 3- CV-KLR ARLENE SPILFOGEL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FOX BROADCASTING COMP ANY, A Delawa re co rp or at io n, LANGLE Y PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Cal ifo rn iaCo rp or at io n, TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., a Geo rg iaco rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 5, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Arle ne Sp il fo ge l ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s o rd er d is mis si ng he r co m pl ai nt . On ap pe al , sh e as se rts th atth e co urt b el ow erredinfin di ng th athe r co m pl ai nt fai le d t o s ta te a cau se of a ct io n. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e al le ge s t ha t d efen da nt s i nv ad ed he r pr iv acy by

way of “ publ ic di sc lo su re o f pr iv at e fac ts ” an d “ in tru si on up on se cl us io n,” two Flo rid a co m m on law t orts . Her al le ga ti on s ar is e o utof a n i nc id en t 1 in whi chsh e was fil m edforanep is od e o f th e te le vi si onsh ow “ COPS” witho uthe r kn owl ed ge du rin g atra ffi c st op . 2

I. Sp il fo ge l’s fi rs t al le ga ti on is th atDefen da nt ’s comm it te d a n i nv as io n o f pr iv acy. Und er Fl or id a la w, th e el em en ts of t he to rt o f in va si on of p riv acy are: 1 ) th e p ub li cat io n, 2 ) of

pri va te fact s, 3 ) th atare o ffen si ve , and4) a re n otof p ub li c co nc ern . Cap e Publ ’ns, In c. v. Hi tc hn er, 5 49 So . 2d . 13 74 , 13 77 (Fl a. 19 89 ). Sp il fo ge l cl ai m s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atth e sh e fai le d t o al le ge fact s s uf

fic ie ntto sat is fy

th e se co ndele m en t. Sp il fo ge l’s s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai ntall eg edth atth e COPS b ro ad cas t
Spilfoge l makes no mention on appe al of c auses of action stated in he r complaint 1 for c ommercia l misappropriation and de famation by implication. These arguments arewaived. The motion or Appellant f or leave to file a

brief out- of-time is grante d. The reply 2 brief in que stion was considere d by this Court i n its analy sis of this case.

2publ ic iz edhe r “ ecce ntric reac ti on s an d b eh av io r instres sf ul si tu at io ns .” Sp eci fic fact s ab ou t h er tha t wer e d is cl os edin cl ud e: th atsh e was up se t wi th he r daug ht er, th atsh e k eep s h er ce ll ph on e in a pl as ti c b ag inhe r pu rs e an d u se s t he ph on e wit h th e b ag on it , andth atsh e h ada trun k fu ll of i te m s t ha t s he want edto gi ve to hu rri can e v ic ti m s b utth es e d on at io ns ha d n otbe enacce pt ed
. Sp il fo ge l o ffer s v ery 3 li tt le expl an at io n fo r why any reas on ab le juro r co ul d fi ndth es e p art ic ul ar fa ct s ar e pr iv at e an d h ow s uc h ajuro r co ul d d eem th ei r rev el at io n o ffen si ve . No s uc h
ex pl an at io n i s re ad il y

ap pa ren t t o t hi s co urt. Sp il fo ge l re li es on Bau gh v. CB S, In c., 82 8 F . Sup p. 7 45 (N.D. Cal. 1 99 3) , to supp ort h er al le ga ti on s, s ta ti ng th atrig htto pri va cy cas es are “ ve ry

fact
se ns it iv e” an d t he factpa tt ern s ar e “ m ark ed ly” and“ st rik in g[ ly] si m il ar.” Pl ai nt iff fai ls to ex pl ai n wh ethe r, an d t o wh atex te nt , th e Cal ifo rn ialeg al reg im e th atBau gh
was de ci de d u nd er an d F lo rid a law are s im il ar. Reg ard le ss , th ere a re cr it ic al factua l d iff

eren ces be twee n t ha t ca se an d t hi s o ne . Bau gh cal le d t he po li ce t o rep ort an in st an ce o f do m es ti c v io le nc e in he r ho m e. Sh e was reco rd edinhe r ho m e as sh e rel ay edde ep ly pers on al in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g h er m arri ag e an d he al th . The Baug h c ou rt n ot edth e d iff ic ul t an d c om

pl ex na tu re o f do m es ti c Spilfoge l also claims that the episode r evea led fa cts about her stance on the usag e 3 of medication. However , this claim was not made be forethe district court a nd is theref

ore waived. See Walton v. J ohnson & Johnson S erv., I nc., 347 F .3d 1272, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003). 3vi ol en ce an d s ta te d t ha t Baug h h ad“ a le gi ti m at e in te res t i n m ai nt ai ni ng th e

in te gr it y an d d ig ni ty of th e[] fam il y un it .” Id . at 7 55 . In c on tra st , Spi lfo ge l was
reco rd edon a publ ic st reetdi sc us si ng th e d et ai ls of atra ffi c st op forrun ni ng th ro ug h s ev eral st op si gn s an d driv in g wi th ou t wo rk in g t ag an d h eadli gh ts on he r ve hi cl e. Sp il fo ge l triv ia li zes th e d iff eren ce b etweena co nv ers at io n abo utth e sp eci fic s o f anin st an ce o f do m es ti c v io le nc e an d aco nv ers at io n abo uttra ffi c vi ol at io ns . As d is cu ss edab ov e, no m at eri al in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he in ti m at e de ta il s o f th e fam il y

un itwere re co rd edinth e in st an t ca se , no r di d S pi lfo ge l al le ge to th e d is tri ctco urt tha t an y in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g h er h eal thor we ll -b ei ng was di sc lo se d. Th e fac ts of t he two cas es co ul d h ard ly be m or e d iff eren t. Sp il fo ge l fa il edto all eg e th e d is cl os ur e o f an y fact s t ha t a r eas on ab le juro r co ul d d eem

pri va te an d o ffen si ve . Thu s, the di stric t co urt was co rrec t t o d is m is s he r co m pl ai ntforpubl ic di sc lo su re o f pr iv at e fac ts .
II. Sp il fo ge l’s s eco ndall eg at io n i s t ha t Def en da nt s i nt ru de d upo n h er se cl us io n. Un de r Fl or id a law, th is to rt r equi res in tru si on s “ in to a ‘pla ce’ inwhi ch th ere i s a r eas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy.” Alls ta te Ins . Co. v . Gin sb erg , 86 3 So . 2d15 6, 1 62 (Fl a. 20 03 ) (p er curia m). Fo r li ab il it y to att ach , th e o ffen de r m us t 4be gu il ty of “ph y si cal ly or el ect ro ni cal ly intru di ng in to on e’s pr iv at e qua rte rs .” Id
.

Bec au se th e al le ge d fa ct s s ta te th atth e rec or di ng oc cu rredon a publ ic st reet , Sp il fo ge l h as no t p le d fa ct s ad equa te fora fi nd in g t ha t Def en dant s’ in tru de d upo n he r se cl us io n. Pl ai nt iff fai ls to pro du ce an y

m ean in gf

ul supp ort fo r he r arg um en t tha t the publ ic st reeton whi chth e rec or di ng oc cu rredwas apri va te pl ace. Sp il fo ge l ci te s th e Supr em e Co urt ca se Dela ware v . Pro us e, 44 0 U.S. 6 48 , 99 S. Ct. 1 39 1 (1 97 9) , fo r th e p ro po si ti on th atno t al l Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n i s l os t wh ena pe rs on le av es th ei r ho m e o r en te rs th ei r car . Unfo rtu na te ly for Pl ai nt iff , th is is a far c ry fro m est ab li sh in g t ha t Fl or id a la w dee m s a c it y streeta pr iv at e p la ce fo r th e pu rp os es of t he law o f in va si on of p riv acy. Infact , Spi lfo ge l ci te s t o n o F lo rid a cas es what so ev er i n s up po rt o f he r in tru si on up onsec lu si on cla im . Ins te ad , sh e ci te s t o t he de fin it io n o f th e to rt i n t he Seco ndRes ta te m en t an d t o v ari ou s Alab am a cas es . Thes e au th or it ie s ca rry m in im al weig htinth is cas e b ecau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ic it ly stat edth atit s i ntru si on to rt i s n arro wer tha n Alab am a’s. Gin sb erg , 86 3 S o. 2 d a t 1 62 (di st in gu is hi ng be twee n Al ab am a an d Fl or id a’s ve rs io ns of t he law o n t he ba si s o f Alaba m a’s ad op ti on of t he Res ta te m en t’s re li an ce o n “ pr iv at e act iv it ie s” whi le Flo rid a requi res in tru si on in to

“pr iv at e qua rte rs ”) . 5Sp il fo ge l fa il s t o s ta te fact s upo n wh ic h areas on ab le juro r co ul d fi ndth at

th e tapi ng of h er co nv ers at io n wi th th e p ol ic e o ffi cer i n apubl ic st reetam ou nt edto
anin tru si on in to he r “pr iv at e qua rte rs .” Fl or id a la w exp li ci tl y requi res anin tru si on in to a pr iv at e p la ce an d n otm erel y in to a pr iv at e act iv it y . Spi lfo ge l v ol un ta ril y pl acedhe rs el f in a publ ic pl ace wh ere s he di d n otha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIRMED

6