## Facts

- A television station prepared an investigative report on veterinary practices, including the Copelands’ veterinarian.
- The veterinarian obtained the Copelands’ permission to bring a “student” to their home during a house call.
- The “student” was a station employee who entered the home and secretly videotaped inside without disclosing her media role or recording purpose.
- The broadcast included brief video footage recorded inside the Copelands’ house.
- The Copelands sued for trespass and later moved to amend the complaint to add invasion of privacy and state and federal wiretapping claims.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the homeowners’ trespass claim where entry was obtained by an asserted educational purpose but used for undisclosed news gathering and secret videotaping.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add invasion of privacy and wiretapping claims.

## Decision

- Summary judgment for defendants on trespass was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Denial of the motion to amend to add invasion of privacy and state and federal wiretapping claims was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass occurs when a person enters another’s land without consent.
- Consent may be implied from conduct, but silence alone does not establish consent.
- Consent to enter may be limited in scope and may be restricted by conditions tied to the purpose for which entry is granted.
- When consent is obtained through misrepresentation of identity or purpose, or the entrant acts outside the scope of the permission given, a fact issue may exist on authorization, making summary judgment improper.
- Leave to amend may be denied when proposed claims are legally insufficient or futile.
- Minnesota law (at the time) did not recognize the asserted common-law invasion of privacy theories advanced by the plaintiffs, supporting denial of amendment.
- Proposed wiretapping claims were properly rejected where the statutory framework, including applicable exemptions, rendered the pleaded theory legally deficient on the record presented.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could find the station employee’s entry unauthorized because permission to admit a “student” did not necessarily include consent for undisclosed investigative recording, so the trespass claim could proceed; however, amendments adding invasion of privacy and wiretapping claims were denied as legally insufficient.


Copeland v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)