Koeppel v. Speirs

Robert Speirs (defendant) installed a hidden camera in an office bathroom, claiming he had first placed it in the reception area to monitor a suspected employee, saw nothing, removed it, then later reinstalled it in the bathroom after finding a hypodermic needle near that employee's parking space. Speirs said the camera never actually worked and that he'd disconnected the monitor and receiver. Sara Koeppel (plaintiff), another employee, discovered the camera the next day. Police found it inoperable with a dead battery, but after replacing the battery and reassembling the receiving equipment, a grainy, foggy image of an officer inside the bathroom briefly appeared before a "no signal" message showed. Koeppel sued for invasion of privacy; the trial court granted Speirs summary judgment for lack of proof of actual intrusion, but the court of appeals reversed, finding enough evidence the camera was operational. Speirs appealed.

Whether placing a device capable of recording or transmitting in a place where privacy is reasonably expected constitutes invasion of privacy without proof that actual viewing or recording occurred.