## Facts

- A customer complained to store management that homosexual activity was occurring in a restroom provided for patrons.
- Cox, the store’s loss-prevention manager, inspected the restroom and observed behavior he considered suspicious (men waiting for particular stalls while others were open).
- Cox and another security employee went to an area above the restroom and looked through a crack in the ceiling to determine whether criminal activity was occurring in a closed stall.
- Based on what they observed from that vantage point, Elmore was arrested and charged with sodomy.
- Elmore entered an Alford plea and received a probated first-offender sentence.
- Elmore sued the store and Cox for invasion of privacy, alleging they spied on him in a private place (a closed toilet stall).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Elmore appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether observing a closed restroom stall through a ceiling crack, undertaken to investigate suspected criminal activity on store premises, constitutes actionable intrusion upon seclusion.
2. Whether disputed assertions about prior restroom activity or Elmore’s actual commission of a crime created a genuine issue of material fact barring summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the store and Cox.
- Although a person has a privacy interest in a toilet stall, the defendants’ observation was legally justified under the circumstances.
- The defendants’ conduct, prompted by a complaint and corroborating suspicious circumstances and directed to verifying suspected crime, was not an unreasonable intrusion as a matter of law.
- Alleged factual disputes about whether criminal conduct actually occurred were not material to whether the investigative intrusion was actionable.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion is a recognized form of invasion of privacy, requiring an unreasonable intrusion into another’s private affairs.
- Privacy in a toilet stall exists, but the right of privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights and legitimate interests of others.
- A property owner’s reasonable, limited investigation of suspected criminal activity on its premises may be justified and therefore not actionable as an invasion of privacy.
- Summary judgment is proper when, on undisputed material facts, the complained-of conduct is lawful as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that the store’s targeted ceiling-level observation of a restroom stall, undertaken in response to a complaint and suspicious circumstances to confirm suspected illegal activity, was a justified investigative measure and did not support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.


Elmore v. Atl. Zayre, Inc., 178 Ga. App. 25, 341 S.E.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1986)