## Facts

- Robert Speirs, an insurance agent, employed Sara Koeppel in his Waterloo, Iowa office, which had a small unisex employee bathroom.
- Suspecting another employee of misconduct, Speirs bought a battery-powered wireless camera, monitor, VCR, and videotape.
- Speirs claimed he initially placed the camera in the reception area to observe the employee’s workstation and could view images on the monitor.
- On December 26, 2005, Speirs placed the camera inside the hollow base of a shelf in the employee bathroom, between the sink and toilet.
- Koeppel discovered the hidden camera while using the bathroom the next day; police later found the camera inoperable due to a dead battery.
- After police replaced the battery and reassembled the system, the camera briefly transmitted a grainy image of an officer in the bathroom before losing signal.
- Koeppel sued Speirs for invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) and sexual harassment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Speirs on both claims, reasoning the invasion-of-privacy claim required proof of an actual intrusion (i.e., successful recording/transmission of identifiable images).
- The court of appeals affirmed as to sexual harassment but reversed as to invasion of privacy.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review limited to the invasion-of-privacy issue.

## Issues

1. Whether intrusion upon seclusion based on secret bathroom surveillance requires proof that the equipment actually captured clear, identifiable images of the plaintiff, or whether it is enough that the device could have invaded privacy.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, reversed summary judgment for Speirs on the invasion-of-privacy claim, and remanded.
- The court held the intrusion-on-seclusion tort focuses on the intrusion itself, not on publication or proof of successful recording.
- In electronic surveillance cases, an actionable intrusion occurs when the plaintiff proves the device used could have invaded privacy in some way.
- Evidence that the camera had produced images elsewhere and briefly transmitted an image from the bathroom sufficed to create a fact question on capability and intrusion.
- Secretly placing a camera in a workplace bathroom was conduct a reasonable person could find highly offensive.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, into another’s solitude or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- For hidden electronic surveillance, liability does not depend on proving the device successfully recorded or produced identifiable images; capability to invade privacy can be sufficient.
- The key inquiry is whether the surveillance method could intrude on a protected zone of privacy, and whether the conduct is objectively highly offensive.
- Bathrooms are locations with strong, reasonable expectations of privacy; covert monitoring there readily satisfies the offensiveness element.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff may proceed on an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim when a defendant secretly installs surveillance in a bathroom and the evidence permits a finding that the equipment could have invaded privacy, even without proof the device actually captured clear images of the plaintiff.


Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011)