Opinion ID: 1830977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether michael committed an intentional intrusion upon solitude or seclusion of plaxico?

Text: ¶ 11. The present case was dismissed by the Circuit Court of Tippah County with prejudice. This Court has held that such dismissals by the trial court are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Pierce v. Heritage Properties, Inc., 688 So.2d 1385, 1388 (Miss.1997). When the Court reviews such decisions of the trial court, it should first ask whether the court below applied the correct legal standard. Burkett v. Burkett, 537 So.2d 443, 446 (Miss.1989). If so, we then consider whether the decision was one of those several reasonable ones which could have been made. Id. The trial court's decision will be affirmed unless there is a `definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of relevant factors.' Cooper v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 568 So.2d 687, 692 (Miss.1990). ¶ 12. In order for Plaxico to prevail in this action, she must prove all elements of the sub-tort to invasion of privacy, intentional intrusion upon seclusion or solitude. In Candebat v. Flanagan , the we stated that actions for the invasion of privacy as a tort have received universal recognition in the United States. Candebat v. Flanagan, 487 So.2d 207, 209 (Miss.1986). In fact, every state except Rhode Island provides either statutory or common law relief for it. Candebat, 487 So.2d at 209 ( citing Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts, § 118 (5th Ed.1984)). Mississippi gave explicit recognition to the tort of invasion of privacy in Deaton v. Delta Democrat Publishing Co., 326 So.2d 471, 473 (Miss.1976). The tort of invasion of privacy is comprised of four distinct and separate sub-torts which are as follows: 1. The intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another; 2. The appropriation of another's identity for an unpermitted use; 3. The public disclosure of private facts; and 4. Holding another to the public eye in a false light. Candebat, 487 So.2d at 209. In the case at bar, it is the first of the sub-torts which is at issue, the intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another. ¶ 13. Candebat is our only case that deals specifically with the sub-tort of intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another. There we stated that to recover for an invasion of privacy, a plaintiff must meet a heavy burden of showing a substantial interference with his seclusion of a kind that `would be highly offensive to the ordinary, reasonable man, as the result of conduct to which the reasonable man would strongly object.' Id. ( quoting Restatement Second of Torts, § 652B, comt. d (1977)). Further, the plaintiff must show some bad faith or utterly reckless prying to recover on an invasion of privacy cause of action. 487 So.2d at 209 ( citing Wilson v. Retail Credit Co., 325 F.Supp. 460, 467 (S.D.Miss.1971), aff'd, 457 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir.1972)). However, the general rule is that there is no requirement of publication or communication to a third party in cases of intrusion upon a plaintiffs seclusion or solitude. Fowler v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 343 F.2d 150, 156 (5th Cir.1965). ¶ 14. In the present case, Plaxico did not prove each element of intentional intrusion upon solitude or seclusion of another. Plaxico was in a state of solitude or seclusion in the privacy of her bedroom where she had an expectation of privacy. However, we conclude that a reasonable person would not feel Michael's interference with Plaxico's seclusion was a substantial one that would rise to the level of gross offensiveness as required to prove the sub-tort of intentional intrusion upon seclusion or solitude. ¶ 15. No one would dispute that parents have a predominant and primary interest in the nurture and care of their children. Ethredge v. Yawn, 605 So.2d 761, 764 (Miss.1992). In child custody matters the best interest of the child is the polestar consideration. Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So.2d 304, 306 (Miss.1998). Here, Michael became concerned about the welfare of his daughter, who was in the custody of his former wife. Michael's former wife subleased a cabin from him, and invited Plaxico to be her roommate. His concern was based on numerous rumors of an illicit lesbian sexual relationship between Plaxico and his former wife. Michael decided that it was not in the best interests of his daughter to allow her to remain in the custody of her mother, and he wanted to obtain custody of the child. It is of no consequence that the mother was having an affair with another woman. She could have been carrying on an illicit affair with a man in the home where the child was, and any father would feel that this too was inappropriate behavior to be carried on in the presence of the child. A modification would still be desired by the parent. ¶ 16. In the present case, Michael did want to file for modification of child custody. However, he had no proof that there actually was lesbian sexual relationship which could be adversely affecting his minor child. In order to obtain such proof, he went to the cabin, peered through the window and took pictures of the two women engaged in sexual conduct. Three pictures were actually developed which were of Plaxico in a naked state from her waist up in her bed. Michael believed that he took these pictures for the sole purpose to protect his minor child. Although these actions were done without Plaxico's consent, this conduct is not highly offensive to the ordinary person which would cause the reasonable person to object. In fact, most reasonable people would feel Michael's actions were justified in order to protect the welfare of his minor child. Therefore, the elements necessary to establish the tort of intentional intrusion upon solitude or seclusion are not present. ¶ 17. Plaxico has failed to establish that there was an invasion of her privacythe sub-tort of intentional intrusion upon seclusion or solitude. Consequently, the remaining two issues concerning damages and qualified privilege are moot and will not be addressed. ¶ 18. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Tippah County Circuit Court. ¶ 19. AFFIRMED. MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. PITTMAN, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. BANKS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., AND McRAE, J. McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BANKS, J.