If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

STEVE MARITAS and UNITED FEDERATION 

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS & SECURITYPOLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNPUBLISHED

March 21, 2024

v No. 365487

Macomb Circuit Court

INTERNATIONAL UNIONS, SECURITY POLICE 

AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA, 

DAVID L. HICKEY, and DWAYNE PHILLIPS,

LC No. 2022-004762-NZ

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GARRETT, P.J., and RIORDAN and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Years of contentious litigation and competition between the parties underscores this 

eavesdropping action. Plaintiffs, Steve Maritas and United Federation Law Enforcement Officers 

& Security-Police Benevolent Association (UFLEOS-PBA), sued defendants, International 

Unions, Security Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), David L. Hickey, and 

Dwayne Phillips,

1

alleging entitlement to civil remedies under MCL 750.539h for eavesdropping

after defendants posted a photograph of Maritas online. The trial court granted summary 

disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(8), concluding that the posting of the photograph

did not meet the statutory definition of “eavesdropping” because the photograph did not constitute 

“private discourse of others.” On appeal, plaintiffs challenge this decision, arguing that defendants

eavesdropped on Maritas because they intended to convey communication by posting his 

photograph online. Because the photograph does not record or transmit Maritas’s “private 

discourse,” plaintiffs failed to state a claim under MCR 750.539h. Accordingly, we affirm.

 

1 Maritas is the organizing director for UFLEOS-PBA, while Hickey and Phillips are the 

international president and organizing director, respectively, for SPFPA.
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

During a 2022 deposition, as part of a separate federal proceeding between the parties, 

defendants took a photograph of Maritas without his knowledge or consent. The deposition was 

recorded orally, not by video, and occurred in a boardroom belonging to defendants’ counsel.

Defendants published the photograph of Maritas on the Internet and used it in materials sent to 

members of defendants’ union. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint against defendants 

alleging that defendants violated MCL 750.539d—the criminal statute prohibiting the use of a 

device for transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping in a private place—and requesting civil 

remedies under MCL 750.539h.2 

Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that plaintiff 

failed to state a claim under MCL 750.539h because the statute only applies to eavesdropping, not 

to the taking and distribution of photographs. The trial court found that the photograph of Maritas 

did not constitute the “private discourse of others” because it was not a communication of thought 

by words. As such, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants because

plaintiffs failed to state a claim as a matter of law. This appeal followed.

II. EAVESDROPPING

Plaintiffs contend that taking Maritas’s photograph without his permission and distributing 

it violated MCL 750.539d. According to plaintiffs, this violation entitles them to civil remedies 

under MCL 750.539h because the photograph amounted to eavesdropping.

A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

“A decision on a motion for summary disposition and the interpretation of a statute are 

reviewed de novo.” Le Gassick v Univ of Mich Regents, 330 Mich App 487, 494; 948 NW2d 452

(2019). On de novo review, “we give respectful consideration, but no deference” to the trial court’s 

legal rulings. Wasik v Auto Club Ins Assoc, 341 Mich App 691, 695; 992 NW2d 332 (2022).

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim 

based on the factual allegations in the complaint. When considering such a motion, 

a trial court must accept all factual allegations as true, deciding the motion on the 

pleadings alone. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a 

claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify 

recovery. [El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159; 934 NW2d 

665 (2019) (cleaned up).]

Resolution of this appeal turns on the proper interpretation of MCL 750.539h. “The 

primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature,” and “[t]he 

most reliable evidence of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute.” Le Gassick, 330 

 

2 Plaintiffs also asserted claims of defamation and false light, which were dismissed by the trial 

court under MCR 2.116(C)(6) because they were raised in another forum. Plaintiffs do not 

challenge the dismissal of these claims on appeal.
-3-

Mich App at 495 (citation omitted). “If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is 

presumed that the Legislature intended the meaning plainly expressed in the statute.” Id. We 

“give effect to every word, phrase, and clause,” avoiding “an interpretation that would render any 

part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Id. We also give common words and phrases their 

plain meaning “as determined by the context in which the words are used, and a dictionary may 

be consulted to ascertain the meaning of an undefined word or phrase.” Id.

B. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred when determining that the photograph taken of 

Maritas was not eavesdropping because defendants’ public distribution of the photograph

constitutes the transmission of Maritas’s “private discourse.”

3

MCL 750.539d(1) provides that “a person shall not do either of the following”:

(a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the 

person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, 

recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events 

in that place.

(b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a 

recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was 

obtained in violation of this section. 

“A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime[.]” MCL

750.539d(3). Although MCL 750.539d(1) is a criminal statute, MCL 750.539h permits plaintiffs

to recover civil damages if they face unlawful eavesdropping. MCL 750.539h states:

Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced 

contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies:

(a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping.

(b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops.

(c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury. [Emphasis 

added.]

While MCL 750.539d imposes criminal liability for recording, transmitting, photographing, or 

eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in a private place without consent, recovery of damages

under MCL 750.539h is limited only to eavesdropping on a conversation. Thus, the issue before 

 

3 Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ brief is so inadequate that it amounts to an abandonment of 

their entire appeal. Because plaintiffs’ brief presents their arguments and provides authority in 

support of many of their contentions, plaintiffs’ failure to adequately brief every contention does 

not constitute abandonment of their entire appeal.
-4-

us is whether taking and disseminating Maritas’s photograph constitutes eavesdropping under 

MCL 750.539h.

Eavesdropping is defined by statute as: “to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part 

of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” 

MCL 750.539a(2) (emphasis added). Although the statute does not define “private discourse,” 

this Court has previously recognized that “its ordinary dictionary definition is communication of 

thought by words; talk; conversation; . . . any unit of connected speech or writing longer than a 

sentence.” Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 185; 670 NW2d 675 (2003) (cleaned up; 

emphasis added). As such, eavesdropping “is limited to overhearing, recording, amplifying, or 

transmitting the private, oral, or written communication of others without the permission of all 

persons engaged in the communication.” Id. (cleaned up). As a matter of common sense, the

photograph of Maritas does not record or transmit oral communication, as it involves no spoken 

words. Nor does the photograph depict any written communication by Maritas. Thus, although 

the photograph may be considered a visual means of communication, because it does not record 

or transmit the private discourse of Maritas, the trial court did not err by concluding that plaintiffs 

failed to state a cause of action under MCL 750.539h.

Plaintiffs, relying primarily on dicta from unpublished caselaw,4contend that photographs 

are communications that constitute “private discourse” under the statute. The cases that plaintiffs 

rely on, however, are unrelated to the question of whether a photograph constitutes the private 

discourse of others under MCL 750.539a(2). As such, they are inapplicable and unpersuasive. 

Plaintiffs also claim that when determining whether the photograph constitutes the “private 

discourse of others,” the trial court should have considered that the photograph was taken during 

an oral, not video, deposition and the “communicative intent” of defendants. Because plaintiffs 

do not cite any caselaw in support of their contentions, their arguments are abandoned. See Yee v 

Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379, 406; 651 NW2d 756 (2002) (“[W]here a party 

fails to brief the merits of an allegation of error, the issue is deemed abandoned by this Court.”)

(cleaned up). Regardless, their arguments lack merit because the plain language of MCL 750.539h 

requires no such consideration. The eavesdropping statute was designed to protect the 

unconsented recording or transmission of an individual’s private discourse. The format of the 

deposition and defendants’ intent when posting the photograph are irrelevant to determining 

whether a photograph records or transmits Maritas’s private, oral, or written communication. 

Plaintiffs’ interpretation also fails to give meaning to each word of the statute by conflating 

“eavesdropping” with “photographing.” MCL 750.539d(1)(a) lists a series of prohibited actions—

“observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping”—each of which must 

retain some independent meaning. Adopting plaintiffs’ argument that photographing Maritas 

equates to eavesdropping would render portions of the statute surplusage or nugatory, which we 

always endeavor to avoid. See Le Gassick, 330 Mich App at 495. Although defendants’ taking

 

4 While they may be considered for their persuasive value, unpublished opinions are not 

precedentially binding on this Court. MCR 7.215(C)(1); Kern v Kern-Koskela, 320 Mich App 

212, 241; 905 NW2d 453 (2017).
-5-

and dissemination of the unconsented photograph of Maritas may violate MCL 750.539d(1), this

violation does not entitle plaintiffs to civil remedies under MCL 750.539h. Because plaintiffs’

eavesdropping claim “is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly 

justify recovery,” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 159, the trial court did not err by granting summary 

disposition in favor of defendants.5

We affirm.

/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan 

/s/ Anica Letica 

 

5

In their brief, defendants request that we award them actual and punitive damages because 

plaintiffs filed a “vexatious appeal” under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(a). A party’s request for damages 

for a vexatious appeal “must be contained in a motion” filed under MCR 7.211, not in a brief. 

MCR 7.211(C)(8). Because defendants failed to file a motion in accordance with MCR 

7.211(C)(8), we decline to address their request.