Case Brief

S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District
499 F3d 553 (2009)

MOORE, Presiding Judge
Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense.
FACTS:

Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K, a non-profit corporation that exposes organizations for inhumane practices on animals. Metro Parks Serving Summit County is owned by the government and operates public parklands. Metro Parks hired White Buffalo Inc. to cull deer during the winter and teach the Metro Parks rangers how to kill the deer through sharpshooting methods. The culling was supposed to occur in public places of the park, but when the park was closed to the public. S.H.A.R.K. planted nine camouflaged cameras to video tape the culling then to share the footage with the media. Some of the cameras were found and removed by Metro Parks which S.H.A.R.K considered a violation to their First Amendment rights and the Privacy Protection Act.

ISSUE:

Should the press have only as much access to public property as the rest of the public? Is the Privacy Protection Act in violation if property is seized in a public area and if the information that is seized was collected at a time that was not available to the public?

OPINION AND DECISION:

The court decided that the removal of the cameras that were placed in the park to collect footage of the deer culling was not in violation of the First Amendment. The reason that it did not violate the First Amendment is because although the park is a public area for all to see and visit, the recordings took place during times that the park was closed to the public. This means that S.H.A.R.K. has not right to the access of the video footage of the deer culling. The court also came to the conclusion that Metro Parks was not in violation of the PPA. The Privacy Protection Act protects a person and their organizations from unlawful searches and seizures, but Metro Parks did not make an unlawful search and seizure because they “found property” and removed it from harming the trees in the park. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Metro Parks on S.H.A.R.K.’s federal claims. The court did not find that S.H.A.R.K. suffered a violation of their First Amendment rights or of the Privacy Protection Act.

USE OF PRECEDENT:

The Privacy Protection Act was created in the 1970’s after the Supreme Court decision that allowed a raid of a newsroom by a local sheriff. There was an outcry from the media that was fueled due to the fact that there was no suspected criminal activity by any person at the newspaper. The Act protects the media and organizations from unlawful search and seizures of premises. This Act continues to be used as a basis for current and future cases regarding the government overstepping their boundaries in what they can obtain.

EFFECT ON BUSINESS AND SOCIETY:

This court case has a major impact on business and society due to the focus on the media and the limitations it discusses about the media. In our high-tech world, businesses as well as society focus highly on media to inform them and help them make business decisions. This case shows that video footage recorded in a closed off area to the public was not meant to be and should not be released to public viewing. Also, if property that is not supposed to be in an area is left on a publicly owned park, the government is allowed to collect it without being in violation of the Privacy Protection Act.