## Facts

- Ahmed Tagouma, a workers’ compensation claimant, was surveilled in connection with a disputed claim.
- Investigative Consultant Services, Inc. (ICS) assigned investigator Michael S. Zeigler to conduct surveillance.
- On April 7, 2005, Zeigler followed Tagouma to an Islamic Center located in a strip mall.
- Zeigler parked in a public parking lot serving the strip mall, about 82 yards from the Islamic Center’s front.
- The Islamic Center’s front consisted of a large glass window; activity inside was visible from the parking lot.
- From the public lot, Zeigler used a video camera with a zoom lens to record Tagouma praying inside for about 45 minutes.
- Zeigler did not enter the Islamic Center and did not physically intrude onto private property.
- Tagouma sued ICS and Zeigler for intrusion upon seclusion and abuse of process based on the surveillance.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Tagouma appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether videotaping a claimant praying inside an Islamic Center through a glass window from a public parking lot, using a zoom lens, constitutes intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether conducting surveillance for use in a workers’ compensation matter constitutes abuse of process.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment for ICS and Zeigler.
- The court held there was no actionable intrusion upon seclusion because the recorded activity was visible from a public vantage point and Tagouma was not in a legally protected seclusion.
- The court held Tagouma failed to prove abuse of process because the surveillance was undertaken for a legitimate evidentiary purpose connected to the workers’ compensation dispute and did not involve misuse of legal process.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or private affairs, that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and concerns matters entitled to be private.
- Observing or recording what is readily visible from a place open to the public generally does not constitute intrusion upon seclusion, because the plaintiff has not secluded the activity from public view.
- Use of a zoom lens does not, by itself, create liability where it only clarifies what is already visible from a lawful public vantage point and does not penetrate barriers that otherwise block view.
- Abuse of process requires use of legal process primarily for a purpose for which it was not designed; routine evidence-gathering connected to defending a claim, without perversion of formal process, does not satisfy the tort.

## Conclusion

Because Tagouma’s prayer was visible through a public-facing window from a public parking lot and the surveillance was conducted to obtain evidence for a contested workers’ compensation claim rather than to misuse legal process, the court affirmed summary judgment for the investigator and investigative firm on both tort claims.


Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Servs., Inc., 4 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010)