Editor’s note: This is the first in a two-part series.
In Pearce v. Emmi, No. 16-11499, 2017 BL153011 (E.D. Mich., Southern Div. May 8), the plaintiff, both individually and as “next friend” of her infant child, brought suit against the defendant, a member of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO) who had led a search involving narcotics trafficking and which, inter alia, led to the seizure of three electronic devices from one Cody Furhman, the plaintiff’s fiancé. The plaintiff claimed that one of the devices had been at the defendant’s residence when it was used to activate an application that directed a monitor in the plaintiff’s home to stream audio and visual of the plaintiff—who was nude breastfeeding her infant—to the device, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Federal Wiretapping Act, and provisions of Michigan state law. The district court, ruling on a motion for reconsideration made by the defendant and nonparty OCSO after the magistrate had issued his opinion and order in February, made some findings and drew some legal conclusions that, in many ways, defy common sense. Exploration of those findings and conclusions can help clarify how the court should have ruled.
Background
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
