Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Great Falls Athletic Club in a privacy-invasion action arising from the videotaping of Douglas Miller while exercising at the facility. The Court held that Miller lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the open exercise area and could not maintain a constitutional privacy claim against a private entity. The memorandum decision was designated nonprecedential, and a specially concurring justice questioned whether gym members may retain privacy interests in such circumstances.
Holdings
- Miller failed to invoke a constitutional privacy claim because he sued a private entity rather than the State.
- Miller could not establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in the facility's open exercise area, where the area was visible from the entrance, numerous other members were present, and posted notice disclosed video surveillance.
- Summary judgment for Great Falls Athletic Club was proper because Miller failed to show a genuine issue of material fact concerning the objective reasonableness of his privacy expectation and failed to establish a viable privacy cause of action.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the fitness facility on Miller's common-law invasion-of-privacy claim.
- Whether Miller could maintain a constitutional privacy claim against a private fitness facility.
- Whether Miller had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in the facility's open exercise area.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Saucier v. McDonald's Rests. of Mont., Inc., 2008 MT 63, 342 Mont. 29, 179 P.3d 481(followed)
- Deserly v. Dept. of Corrections, 2000 MT 42, 298 Mont. 328, 995 P.2d 972(followed)
- Rucinsky v. Hentchel, 266 Mont. 502, 881 P.2d 616 (1994)(followed)
- Sistok v. Northwestern Tel. Sys., Inc., 189 Mont. 82, 615 P.2d 176 (1980)(followed)
- State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 700 P.2d 153 (1985)(followed by majority; questioned in special concurrence)
- Lincoln Co. Commn. v. Nixon, 1998 MT 298, 292 Mont. 42, 968 P.2d 1141(followed)
- State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, 345 Mont. 421, 191 P.3d 489(discussed in concurrence)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…