Galella v.Onassis
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit,1973
487 F.2d 986
[Photographer Ron Galella sued Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis for false arrest and malicious prosecution after he was arrested by Secret Service agents protecting Mrs.Onassis’s children,John and Caroline.Mrs.Onassis denied the charges and counterclaimed for injunctive relief against Galella’s continuous efforts to photograph her and her children.The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Galella’s claim.The portion of the opinion that follows deals with the propriety of the District Court’s grant of injunctive relief to Mrs.Onassis and to the government,which had intervened in its capacity as protector of the children’s safety.]
Before SMITH,HAYS and TIMBERS,Circuit Judges.
J.JOSEPH SMITH,Circuit Judge:
Galella fancies himself as a “paparazzo” (literally a kind of annoying insect,perhaps roughly equivalent to the English “gadfly.”) Paparazzi make themselves as visible to the public and obnoxious to their photographic subjects as possible to aid in the advertisement and wide sale of their works.
Some examples of Galella’s conduct brought out at trial are illustrative.Galella took pictures of John Kennedy riding his bicycle in Central Park across the way from his home.He jumped out into the boy’s path,causing the agents concern for John’s safety.The agents’ reaction and interrogation of Galella led to Galella’s arrest and his action against the agents;Galella on other occasions interrupted Caroline at tennis,and invaded the children’s private schools.At one time he came uncomfortably close in a power boat to Mrs.Onassis swimming.He often jumped and postured around while taking pictures of her party notably at a theater opening but also on numerous other occasions.He followed a practice of bribing apartment house,restaurant and nightclub doormen as well as romancing a family servant to keep him advised of the movements of the family.
After a six-week trial the court dismissed Galella’s claim and granted relief to both the defendant and the intervenor.Galella was enjoined from (1) keeping the defendant and her children under surveillance or following any of them;(2)approaching within 100 yards of the home of defendant or her children,or within 100 yards of either child’s school or within 75 yards of either child or 50 yards of defendant;(3) using the name,portrait or picture of defendant or her children for advertising;(4) attempting to communicate with defendant or her children except through her attorney.
Discrediting all of Galella’s testimony[1] the court found the photographer guilty of harassment,intentional infliction of emotional distress,assault and battery,commercial exploitation of defendant’s personality,and invasion of privacy.Fully crediting defendant’s testimony,the court found no liability on Galella’s claim.Evidence offered by the defense showed that Galella had on occasion inten-tionally physically touched Mrs.Onassis and her daughter,caused fear of physical contact in his frenzied attempts to get their pictures,followed defendant and her children too closely in an automobile,endangered the safety of the children while they were swimming,water skiing and horseback riding.Galella cannot successfully challenge the court’s finding of tortious conduct.[2]
Finding that Galella had “insinuated himself into the very fabric of Mrs.Onassis ’life …” the court framed its relief in part on the need to prevent further invasion of the defendant’s privacy.Whether or not this accords with present New York law,there is no doubt that it is sustainable under New York’s proscription of harassment.
Of course legitimate countervailing social needs may warrant some intrusion despite an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom from harassment.However the interference allowed may be no greater than that necessary to protect the overriding public interest.Mrs.Onassis was properly found to be a public figure and thus subject to news coverage.Nonetheless,Galella’s action went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering.When weighed against the de minimis public importance of the daily activities of the defendant,Galella’s constant surveillance,his obtrusive and intruding presence,was unwarranted and unreasonable.If there were any doubt in our minds,Galella’s inexcusable conduct toward defendant’s minor children would resolve it.(https://www.daowen.com)
Galella does not seriously dispute the court’s finding of tortious conduct.Rather,he sets up the First Amendment as a wall of immunity protecting newsmen from any liability for their conduct while gathering news.There is no such scope to the First Amendment right.Crimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected.[Branzburg v.Hayes,408 U.S.665 (1972);Dietemann v.Time,Inc.,449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir.1971)].There is no threat to a free press in requiring its agents to act within the law.
Injunctive relief is appropriate.Galella has stated his intention to continue his coverage of defendant so long as she is newsworthy,and his continued harassment even while the temporary restraining orders were in effect indicate that no voluntary change in this technique can be expected.New York courts have found similar conduct sufficient to support a claim for injunctive relief.
The injunction,however,is broader than is required to protect the defendant.Relief must be tailored to protect Mrs.Onassis from the “paparazzo” attack which distinguishes Galella’s behavior from that of other photographers;it should not unnecessarily infringe on reasonable efforts to “cover” defendant.Therefore,we modify the court’s order to prohibit only (1) any approach within twenty-five (25)feet of defendant or any touching of the person of the defendant Jacqueline Onassis;(2) any blocking of her movement in public places and thoroughfares;(3) any act foreseeable or reasonably calculated to place the life and safety of defendant in jeopardy;and (4) any conduct which would reasonably be foreseen to harass,alarm,or frighten the defendant.
Any further restriction on Galella’s taking and selling pictures of defendant for news coverage is,however,improper and unwarranted by the evidence.
Likewise,we affirm the grant of injunctive relief to the government modified to prohibit any action interfering with Secret Service agents’ protective duties.Galella thus may be enjoined from (a) entering the children’s schools or play areas;(b) engaging in action calculated or reasonably foreseen to place the children’s safety or well being in jeopardy,or which would threaten or create physical injury;(c) taking any action which could reasonably be foreseen to harass,alarm,or frighten the children;and (d) from approaching within thirty (30) feet of the children.
As modified,the relief granted fully allows Galella the opportunity to photograph and report on Mrs.Onassis’ public activities.Any prior restraint on news gathering is minuscule and fully supported by the findings.
TIMBERS,Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
… I am constrained to dissent from the judgment of the Court and the majority opinion to the extent that they modify the injunctive relief found necessary by the district court to protect Jacqueline Onassis and her children … from the continued predatory conduct of the self-proclaimed paparazzo Galella.