Opinion ID: 146274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Language: when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy

Text: Our research uncovered only four Tennessee cases that even mention § 39-13-605, [3] and only two that state the facts of conviction. In State v. Castrejon, No. M2005-01886-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 1097486 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr.6, 2006) (unpublished opinion), the court upheld the defendant's consecutive sentence for conviction under § 39-13-605 for videotaping himself touching a minor while she slept. Id. at  1. In State v. Dickens, No. M2003-00783-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 735025 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr.6, 2004), the court upheld, against a sufficiency challenge, the defendant's conviction for criminal attempt to commit unlawful photographing in violation of § 39-13-605 for attempting to take a picture of a naked woman over the top of the wall in a closed, locked tanning-booth stall that was designed to ensure privacy. Id. at -2, . Neither court engaged in any analysis of whether the offense occurred in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Dickens court's sufficiency analysis focused not on the woman's expectation of privacy within the tanning booth but rather on the place itself, stating that each tanning room is designed to ensure privacy. The doors lock from the inside and, although the walls do not extend all the way to the ceiling, it would be difficult to see over them without standing on something. Id. at . The court thus focused on whether the place itselfthe tanning roomcould give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and not whether the individual then in the place had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Although the statute seems designed to protect the privacy interests of the individual subject to the photograph, the statute considers that privacy interest with reference to the individual's presence in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. [4] The Tennessee courts have produced a wealth of case law on places where a person may or may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most recently, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the Court of Criminal Appeals's decision rejecting the Sixth Circuit bright-line rule that a resident always has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a secured common area in favor of the totality of the circumstances test ... for determining the reasonableness of an expectation of privacy. State v. Talley, 307 S.W.3d 723, 732-34, 2010 WL 987072, at -7 (Tenn. 2010). Applying this test, the court held that the Defendant [resident] did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the commonly shared, interior hallway of a condominium complex because no resident could unilaterally exclude others rightfully within the hallway, residents had collectively allowed non-residents to have intermittent access to the common areas, and there was no evidence that the defendant had taken any precautions to maintain his privacy in the common areas of the building. Id. 307 S.W.3d at 734, at -8. The court noted that [a]s a general rule, unlocked or unsecured common areas of apartment buildings do not qualify for any reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. 307 S.W.3d at 732, n. 4., at  n. 4. Based on the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals's application of § 39-13-605 and the Tennessee Supreme Court's approach to the privacy inquiry, we conclude that a totality-of-the-circumstances test should apply for determining whether a place may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy under § 39-13-605, recognizing that [t]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and provides sanctuary for citizens wherever they have a legitimate expectation of privacy. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96 n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998). Therefore we must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances at issue in each videotape, an individual in the Rocky Top Tavern would be justified in asserting that he or she is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.