## Facts

- Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s former employees, sometimes aided by current staff, entered his Senate office after hours without authorization in June and July 1965.
- They removed documents from Dodd’s files, photocopied them, returned the originals to the files, and gave the copies to journalist Jack Anderson.
- Anderson knew the copies were obtained through unauthorized entry and copying; columnist Drew Pearson and Anderson used the information in a syndicated column.
- The columns described alleged misconduct and ethical improprieties by Dodd, including matters involving lobbyists and foreign interests, and included commentary on his public career.
- Dodd sued Pearson and Anderson for conversion and invasion of privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether receiving and using photocopies of documents, when the originals are returned and the owner is not permanently deprived of possession, constitutes conversion.
2. Whether publishing information about a public official’s conduct in office, derived from documents obtained through unauthorized entry by third parties, is actionable as invasion of privacy.
3. Whether journalists can be liable for an intrusion-type privacy tort based on knowing receipt and use of information obtained by others’ unauthorized entry.

## Decision

- The court reversed the partial summary judgment for Dodd on conversion, holding Pearson and Anderson were not liable for conversion.
- The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Dodd on invasion of privacy, concluding the publications were not actionable on the record presented.
- The court declined to impose intrusion-based privacy liability on the journalists based solely on their receipt and use of the copied materials.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion requires an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the owner’s control that the actor may justly be required to pay the chattel’s full value.
- Brief removal and copying of documents followed by return of the originals, with no substantial deprivation of use or possession, is generally insufficient interference to constitute conversion (though lesser tort theories may apply to the actual takers).
- Conversion ordinarily does not extend to mere appropriation of information contained in ordinary internal correspondence and office records, as distinct from legally protectable intangible interests (e.g., certain intellectual property interests) closely tied to a tangible medium.
- Invasion of privacy by publication is limited by a public-interest defense; publication concerning matters of legitimate public concern, particularly a public official’s fitness or conduct in office, is not actionable under that tort.
- Journalists who did not themselves intrude, and did not direct the unauthorized entry, are not subject to intrusion-type privacy liability solely because they knowingly received and used information obtained by others’ wrongful entry.

## Conclusion

The court held that journalists who received and used photocopies of a senator’s office documents were not liable for conversion when the originals were returned and the interference was not severe, and that published commentary and disclosures bearing on a public official’s conduct and qualifications for office were not actionable as an invasion of privacy on these facts.


Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1969)