Dallas-area resident Charles Harman began using a police scanner to listen to wireless telephone conversations by a neighbor, Carver Dan Peavy a trustee of the local school district. The Peavys had been long involved in various, ongoing disputes with their neighbors, Charles and Wilma Harman.In December 1994, Harman began recording conversations in which the trustee allegedly made threats to others against Harman and discussed plans to unfairly interfere in the school district's award of an insurance contract.
Harman contacted WFAA-TV about Peavy's actions and said he had tape recordings to substantiate them. After some discussions with an attorney, WFAA elected to show some of the tapes' contents. Peavy sued Harman and WFAA. Primarily at issue is whether the First Amendment…show more content… We AFFIRM in part; REVERSE in part; VACATE in part; and REMAND.
Although the district court ruled in summary judgment that the First Amendment protected the use of the conversations in the reports, the appellate court reversed. The court decided the First Amendment would not protect the station because the reporter had full knowledge of the circumstances of the interceptions and with some participation concerning the interceptions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Cir.) ruled that the television station, Dallas' WFAA-TV, and investigative reporter Robert Riggs may be civilly liable because they knew that recordings of a wireless phone call were made in violation of the law, but they nonetheless continued to use them.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the case, the Fifth Circuit decision will
