In Steve Maritas v International Unions, Security Police and Fire Professionals of America, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that a photograph taken of Mr. Maritas, without his knowledge or consent during a deposition, by the defendants was not a violation warranting civil remedies under MCL 750.539 because it does not constitute “eavesdropping.”
MCL 750.359d(1)(a)-(b) is the statute that imposes criminal liability on acts that involve eavesdropping on and dissemination of events that take place within a private place without the consent of all parties involved. MCL 750.539h allows a plaintiff to recover civil damages if they are the victim of unlawful eavesdropping, stating “[a]ny parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies.” The issue before the court was therefore whether taking and disseminating a photograph of Mr. Maritas constitutes “eavesdropping” under MCL 750.539h.
The Court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to receive civil damages under MCL 750.539h. The relevant statutes describe eavesdropping as the dissemination of private discourse to others without permission from all the parties involved. Case law informs that private discourse is recognized as communication of through by words, and thus, eavesdropping is limited to dissemination of private oral or written communication of others without the permission of all the parties in the conversation. The Court thus concluded that dissemination of the photograph of Mr. Maritas is not eavesdropping. The intention of the eavesdropping statute was designed to protect the dissemination of private discourse, and the photograph was not that.
