## Facts

- Arlene Spilfogel was stopped by police for traffic violations on a public street in Florida.
- A television crew for *COPS* recorded the traffic stop and her interactions with officers without her knowledge.
- The broadcast depicted Spilfogel’s reactions during the stop and included details such as her being upset with her daughter, her practice of keeping a cell phone in a plastic bag while using it, and her car trunk containing items intended for hurricane victims that had not been accepted.
- Spilfogel sued the broadcasters and producers in federal court, alleging invasion of privacy and other claims.
- After dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Spilfogel appealed only two Florida common-law privacy theories: (1) public disclosure of private facts and (2) intrusion upon seclusion; other theories were treated as abandoned.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged public disclosure of private facts under Florida law based on broadcasting Spilfogel’s statements and behavior during a traffic stop on a public street.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged intrusion upon seclusion under Florida law where the alleged intrusion was filming during a traffic stop in a public place.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- On public disclosure of private facts, the court held the complaint did not plausibly allege disclosure of “private facts” that were objectively offensive to a reasonable person.
- On intrusion upon seclusion, the court held Florida law requires intrusion into a private place, and filming on a public street during a traffic stop did not meet that requirement.
- Arguments not raised in the district court were treated as waived on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida law, public disclosure of private facts requires: (1) publication, (2) of private facts, (3) that are offensive, and (4) not of public concern.
- Information is not actionable as “private facts” where the pleaded facts, taken as true, are not plausibly private and offensive when disclosed to the public.
- Florida intrusion upon seclusion requires intrusion into a “place” where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy; intrusion into a private activity, without intrusion into a private place, is insufficient.
- A person voluntarily situated in a public location generally lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy against recording of what is observable and said there.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that televising a person’s conduct and statements during a routine traffic stop on a public street, even if embarrassing, did not constitute public disclosure of private facts or intrusion upon seclusion under Florida law, and it affirmed dismissal of the complaint.


Spilfogel v. Fox News Broad. Co., 433 F. App’x 724 (11th Cir. 2011)