Read the court case assigned to your group and compose a succinct case brief (no more than two pages). SeeGuidelines for Case Briefingsfor more information about about completing the case briefing assignments in this class.
Please remember to puteach group member'sname on your submission.
2/25/2020 Guidelines for Case Briefings: IST 432, Section 001: Leg Env Ist, SP20 Shemanski WC https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2043067/pages/guidelines-for-case-briefings 1/2 Guidelines for Case Brie�ngs Overarching Guidelines for Case Brie�ngs Starting in Lesson 2, you will be writing a case brief as part of each lesson (7 total). The first case brief you will write on your own and all others will be written with your group. Each group will submit a written case brief on a court case that is assigned to your group. Each week, half the groups will be assigned one case and the other half will be assigned a different case. In addition, during the semester, each group will prepare and present one oral case briefing. Only two groups per week will be responsible for an oral case briefing, each presenting on one of the two cases assigned that week. Note that the oral case briefing assignment is in addition to the normal, weekly written case briefing. Once groups are formed, see the Group Oral Case Brief (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2043067/assignments/11373299) assignment to find out when your group will be presenting. Guidelines for Written Case Briefs The written case briefing should offer thoughtful documentation and analysis of a case. This document should act as a summary or abstract that others would be able to review to understand the case. Written case briefs should be 1-2 pages in length. The brief should follow the format described in the L01 reading How to Brief a Case and the L01 The Presentation 1.1.2 - The Legal Process (Part 2). This includes each of the basic elements of the case: Title/Citation/Procedural History Facts/Synopsis Legal Question/Issue Legal Answer/Decision Discussion/Rationale Separate Opinions (if any) Analysis (as appropriate) The written brief should be succinct but cover all necessary material to enable the reader to understand what was going on in the case, what the court's decision was, and what the rationale for that decision was. Have someone from your group submit your group's written case brief to the assignment in Canvas. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2043067/assignments/11373299 2/25/2020 Guidelines for Case Briefings: IST 432, Section 001: Leg Env Ist, SP20 Shemanski WC https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2043067/pages/guidelines-for-case-briefings 2/2 Guidelines for Oral Case Brie�ng The oral case briefing is in addition to the written case briefing. Each group will complete one oral case briefing during the semester. This presentation gives you and your group an opportunity to explain and elaborate on the points that were summarized in the written brief. The oral presentation should be in the form of a VoiceThread presentation. Your presentation should contain a summary of the material presented in the written case briefing. Start by collaborating with your group on roles and responsibilities Oral case briefings should be approximately 10-15 minutes in length Each group member is expected to speak for at least part of the presentation Cooperatively design and develop your presentation using a presentation tool like PowerPoint and writing a script The process of building your VoiceThread will be similar to how you created and shared your self-introductions at the start of the course For the Oral Case Briefing, one person will create the initial VoiceThread and grant other group members editing access so that they can record their audio/video comments in the presentation Use commenting (https://docs.voicethread.com/category/web-application/commenting-web- application/) to create a presentation from your script using both audio/video AND text comments: Use the multimedia tools to record audio/visual comments Use the text comment feature to copy/paste your script after each recorded comment. This is a necessary step for other students that may have hearing impairments and is useful for people who can't use sound or understand better through text. Share your VoiceThread with the rest of your class by clicking the "VoiceThread" button in the course navigation and then clicking the "Add your own" button in the top right corner or the VoiceThread window. The presentation should elaborate on the written case brief, with a discussion of each element (as appropriate -- for example, in a trial court case there will not be any "separate opinions"). Follow the same outline that you used for the written case brief. The presentation should be succinct but should cover all necessary material to enable the audience to understand what was going on in the case, what the court's decision was, and what the rationale for that decision was. https://docs.voicethread.com/category/web-application/commenting-web-application/ Supreme Court of Iowa JEFFREY E. BIGGS v. CATHY J. BIGGS Upon the Petition of JEFFREY E. BIGGS, Appellant, And Concerning CATHY J. BIGGS, Appellee Date: 12/19/2008 Number: 07–1103 Decision: On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Curnan, Judge. A husband appeals a judgment for money damages in favor of his wife for invasion of her privacy through surreptitious videotaping of her activities in her bedroom. AFFIRMED. HECHT, Justice. A husband surreptitiously recorded on videotape his wife’s activities in the marital home. The district court entered a judgment for money damages in favor of the wife who claimed the videotaping constituted a tortious invasion of her privacy. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, rejecting the husband’s contention the wife had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the marital home she shared with him. On further review of the decision of the court of appeals, we conclude a claim for invasion of privacy is legally viable under the circumstances of this case, and therefore affirm the judgment. I. Factual and Procedural Background. Upon our de novo review we make the following findings of fact. The long relationship between Jeffrey and Cathy Biggs was plagued by trust issues. Even before their marriage, Jeffrey and Cathy had recorded each other’s telephone conversations without the other’s knowledge and consent. Apparently undeterred by their history of discord, they were married on December 31, 1999. Jeffrey surreptitiously installed recording equipment and recorded Cathy’s activities during the marriage in the marital home. The equipment included a video cassette recorder positioned above a ceiling, a camera concealed in an alarm clock located in the bedroom regularly used by Cathy, and a motion sensing “optical eye” installed in the headboard of the bed in that room. Cathy discovered her activities in the bedroom had been recorded when she observed Jeffrey retrieving a cassette from the recorder in August 2006. During the ensuing confrontation, Jeffrey damaged the cassette. Cathy took possession of it and restored it with the assistance of others. When she viewed the tape, Cathy discovered it revealed nothing of a graphic or demeaning nature. Although the tape was not offered in evidence, we credit Cathy’s testimony that it recorded the “comings and goings” from the bedroom she regularly used. Notwithstanding the unremarkable activities recorded on the tape, Cathy suffered damage as a consequence of Jeffrey’s actions. She felt violated, fearing Jeffrey had placed, or would place, other hidden cameras in the house. Jeffrey filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In her answer, Cathy alleged she was entitled to compensation for Jeffrey’s “tortious . . . violation of her privacy rights” as a consequence of his surreptitious placement of the video equipment and recording of her activities. Cathy alleged she should be awarded tort damages in this dissolution action or, in the alternative, the claim should be “reserved upon entry of [the] Decree.” The district court found Jeffrey had invaded Cathy’s privacy and entered judgment in the amount of $22,500. Jeffrey contends on appeal the judgment against him for money damages must, as a matter of law, be reversed. He urges this court to conclude his actions were not tortious because Cathy had no reasonable expectation of privacy precluding his recording of her activities in the marital home. Jeffrey further asserts on appeal Cathy cannot recover damages for the alleged invasion because the only publication of the tape was undertaken by Cathy when she permitted her sister to watch it. If we conclude surreptitious interspousal taping is actionable under the circumstances presented here, Jeffrey contends Cathy’s claim is nonetheless barred by the applicable statute of limitations. II. Discussion. A. The Expectation of Privacy within the Marital Relationship. Although this court has never been called upon to decide whether a claim may be brought by one spouse against the other for an invasion of privacy resulting from surreptitious videotaping, the question has been confronted by courts in other jurisdictions. In Miller v. Brooks, 472 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996), a wife hired private investigators to install a hidden camera in the bedroom of her estranged husband’s separate residence. 472 S.E.2d at 352–53. The husband discovered the hidden equipment and sued both his wife and her agents who assisted her in its installation. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. at 353. On appeal from that ruling, the North Carolina Court of Appeals noted the expectation of privacy “might, in some cases, be less for married persons than for single persons,” but that “such is not the case . . . where the spouses were estranged and living separately.” Id. at 355. Finding no “evidence [the husband] authorized his wife or anyone else to install a video camera in his bedroom,” the appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding issues of fact remained for trial in the husband’s claims against his wife and her agents. Id. As we have already noted, in the case before this court the record is unclear whether Jeffrey installed the equipment and accomplished the recording of Cathy’s activities before or after the parties separated. We conclude, however, the question of whether Jeffrey and Cathy were residing in the same dwelling at the time of Jeffrey’s actions is not dispositive on this issue. Whether or not Jeffrey and Cathy were residing together in the dwelling at the time, we conclude Cathy had a reasonable expectation that her activities in the bedroom of the home were private when she was alone in that room. Cathy’s expectation of privacy at such times is not rendered unreasonable by the fact Jeffrey was her spouse at the time in question, or by the fact that Jeffrey may have been living in the dwelling at that time. Our conclusion is consistent with the decision reached by the Texas Court of Appeals in Clayton v. Richards, 47 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. App. 2001). In that case, Mrs. Clayton hired Richards to install video equipment in the bedroom shared by Mrs. Clayton and her husband. Clayton, 47 S.W.3d at 153–54. After discovering the scheme, Mr. Clayton sued his wife and Richards, alleging invasion of his privacy. The trial court denied Mrs. Clayton’s motion