Opinion ID: 691401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Evidence concerning the wiretap claim

Text: 129 Stricklin argues that no evidence supports the jury's verdict concerning York's wiretap claim, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520. Section 2520 provides, in pertinent part, that any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520(a). Such relief includes punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520(b). 130 Three elements are necessary for York to prevail on her section 2520 wiretap claim. She must prove that (1) Stricklin intercepted her oral communications, (2) York had an expectation that her oral communications were not subject to interception, and (3) York's expectation was justified under the circumstances. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1990). 131 This court held in Scutieri v. Paige, 808 F.2d 785, 790 (11th Cir.1987), that circumstantial evidence may establish a section 2520 claim. E.g. Walker, 911 F.2d at 1578. We hold that York presented sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that Stricklin violated York's rights under section 2520. Stricklin's argument is without merit. We reject all other contentions and arguments that appellants present.