Griggs-Ryan v. Smith
904 F.2d 112
     In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Number 89-2204 and 90-1004
Before Circuit Judge Torruella, Circuit Judge Selya, and Circuit Judge Cyr
Decided on June 08, 1990

Relevancy of the case: Implied consent for the recording of calls from the landlord’s telephone

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Federal Wiretapping Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(e)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff was a tenant at the campground operated by the defendant. There, individuals could use her telephone for calls.
• During 1987’s summer, the defendant continuously received obscene calls. On the police department’s advice, she began recording calls, apprising the plaintiff about this.
• Further, she suspected the plaintiff’s friend, Paul Jackson, believing that he was behind the obscene calls. She had often informed the plaintiff about her recording the calls, hoping he would tell Jackson about this.
• The plaintiff filed two civil actions against the defendant and Richard Connelly, a detective in the Wells Police Department, alleging that she unlawfully recorded, intercepted and disclosed his calls to Connelly and the Town of Wells. Further, the detective spread the calls’ contents and violated his rights.
• He also held the municipality liable for Connelly’s acts per the principles of respondeat superior.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the reviewing court should consider all the aspects of consent and decide whether the interception exceeded those boundaries.
• The defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff continuously used Smith’s phone, knowing she was recording every incoming call. Hence, he consented to the recording.

Opinion of the Bench

• The defendant had informed the plaintiff about recording calls. Further, the plaintiff had impliedly consented to the interception; hence, her conduct was not unlawful.
• The bench noted that no action against Smith under Title III is maintainable. Moreover, Connelly cannot be subjected to Title III liability for disclosing the conversation’s content.
• Connelly’s action did not derogate the federal law. As a result, the liability does not rest with his employer, the Towns of Wells.

Final Decision

• The court held that the defendants were not liable.