## Facts

- A.A. Dietemann operated a healing practice from his home in suburban Los Angeles.
- Time, Inc. (publisher of *Life* magazine) investigated “quack” healers in cooperation with the Los Angeles County District Attorney.
- Two *Life* employees gained entry to Dietemann’s property and home by misrepresenting that they were sent by a “Mr. Johnson.”
- Inside Dietemann’s den, one reporter posed as a patient while the other secretly photographed Dietemann with a hidden camera.
- The reporters also covertly transmitted and recorded the conversation using concealed electronic equipment, including a hidden microphone and tape recorder.
- *Life* later published an article about Dietemann’s activities, using the photographs and information obtained during the visit; the materials were also provided to prosecutors.
- Dietemann sued for invasion of privacy under California law; after a bench trial, the district court found for Dietemann and awarded $1,000 in general damages for emotional and dignitary harm.
- Time, Inc. appealed, arguing that investigative reporting methods were protected by the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether secretly photographing and electronically recording conversations inside a private home, after entry gained through deception, constitutes intrusion upon seclusion under California law.
2. Whether the First Amendment bars tort liability for such newsgathering conduct.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Dietemann.
- The covert photographing and electronic recording in Dietemann’s home constituted actionable intrusion upon seclusion under California law.
- The invasion occurred at the time of the clandestine surveillance, independent of later publication.
- Defamation-related publication privileges did not apply because the wrong was the pre-publication intrusion.
- The First Amendment did not immunize the press from generally applicable tort law governing intrusion; it is not a license to commit tortious or criminal acts to gather news.
- The court left undisturbed the $1,000 general damages award based on emotional distress and dignitary injury.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion can be established by intentional, unauthorized sensory or electronic surveillance within a private place where a person reasonably expects privacy.
- Admitting visitors into one’s home does not imply consent to secret mechanical recording, transmission, or photography beyond what an ordinary guest could perceive and later recount.
- First Amendment protections for publication do not confer immunity for unlawful or tortious methods used to obtain information; the press remains subject to generally applicable laws.
- For intrusion claims, liability focuses on the method of obtaining information (the intrusion itself), not solely on the subsequent dissemination of the information.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that covert photographing and electronic recording inside a person’s home, obtained through deception, is an actionable intrusion upon seclusion under California law and that the First Amendment does not shield news organizations from tort liability for such newsgathering conduct.


Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)