Opinion ID: 740792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Privacy Claims

Text: 28 Plaintiffs also appear to argue that because the hot springs were secluded, they were private, and that defendant invaded their privacy by approaching and seizing them. They argue that they had a legitimate expectation that their privacy would not be disturbed by someone requiring them to exit the water and expose their nudity, based on many years of using the hot spring as a clothing optional bathing area. Plaintiffs were not bathing in a private place, however, but on public land, in a recreational area open to the general public. 29 Finally, plaintiffs Beall and Lukas, who work as seasonal employees for the Forest Service, argue that their privacy rights were violated by defendant's act of informing other Forest Service employees that plaintiffs had been issued a warning for being publicly nude. Plaintiffs did not, however, have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in such information. See Nilson v. Layton City, 45 F.3d 369, 372 (10th Cir.1995) ([G]overnment disclosures of arrest records, judicial proceedings, and information contained in police reports, do not implicate the right to privacy) (citations omitted). 30 The judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.