California court vindicates Nicole Catsouras and her family against California Highway Patrol

February 1, 2010
Orange County, California

Today, the California Court of Appeals released a sweeping opinion vindicating the Catsouras family in their lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol.

The facts are brief, but tragic.  Nicole “Nikki” Catsouras was an 18-year-old driver in Orange County, California. She was killed in gruesome car accident.  Two California Highway Patrol officers took photos of Nicole Catsouras’s body at the scene of the accident, as part of their official investigation.  But, the officers are then alleged to have emailed these photos to a group of friends as a Halloween prank, solely for the “shock value” of the images.  These friends then spread them to a wider audience.  Soon, the photos were available on hundreds of websites and anonymous trolls and cowards used the images to taunt the surviving members of the Catsouras family — including by sending the graphic images by email to Nicole Catsouras’s father and siblings.

“The CHP should know better. Every one of its officers should know better. The CHP is in a position to ensure that this does not happen again.” – California Court of Appeal in Catsouras v. CHP

The Catsouras family was shocked to find that police had leaked official investigation photos in such an inappropriate manner.  The Catsouras family filed a lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the two officers on the scene.  The lawsuit alleged that the CHP invaded the family’s privacy by emailing gruesome photos of Nicole to people with no law enforcement interest in the photos, that the family suffered massive emotional distress, and that CHP failed to create or enforce policies protecting the privacy of families.

The Catsouras’s lawsuit against the CHP and officers was initially rejected by the trial court.  The trial court ruled that the CHP had no duty to protect photographs of the dead, and that the family could not bring a lawsuit.

The Catsouras’s suit was reinstated by the California Court of Appeal.  The California Court of Appeal sharply chastised the CHP and its officers for emailing gory photos outside their official duties, and reinstated all but one of the Catsouras’s claims.  The California Court of Appeal held that the CHP and its officers are liable for invasion of privacy if they unnecessarily publicize gory photos of the deceased without any legitimate law enforcement purpose, especially when there is no legitimate public interest in the gory phtoos.  The court also held that it is entirely predictable that gory photos emailed to a small group might be spread to a wider audience, especially if the photos are gory or otherwise shocking.  The court went out of its way to say that the CHP officers should have known better than to publicize gruesome photos to a group of people outside of law enforcement, and that the officers and CHP are now liable for the entirely predictable consequences.  The duty of the CHP to treat the dead with respect is independent from their duty as law enforcement; instead, it is a duty that all people have.

The case will now be remanded for a trial; it is likely that the case will settle before it reaches trial.

Instant analysis:

This case is an important step toward the law recognizing the harms that can be caused by the Internet.

The case also shows how difficult it is for many victims of Internet attacks to find justice.  The trial court initially rejected any liability for the shocking conduct of the officers — holding that a family could not sue even when officers took graphic photos and emailed them to friends solely for their shock value.  It took the California Court of Appeals stepping in to give justice to the Catsouras family.

The case is also an important reminder that real people can be harmed by online pranks — there is a real victim when photos of Nicole Catsouras’s body are emailed to her father with taunting messages.  The impersonal nature of the Internet often makes it seem like nobody “real” is harmed by online actions — everything done online is done through a web browser.

The case is also legal recognition of what we all should already know: the anonymous and impersonal nature of the Internet empowers malicious attacks and content.  The California Court of Appeals ruled that it is entirely predictable that a gory photo emailed to a group of people will be spread all over the Internet and used to abuse an innocent family.  Online, a photo spread to a small group be quickly spread to hundreds of websites and millions of viewers, well beyond the reach of any one person.  As soon as they emailed the photos, the officers lost the ability to stop the chain events that they set in motion.  They may not have intended the photos to reach a massive audience, but their actions started a predictable chain reaction that led to massive emotional abuse of the Catsouras family.

It will be interesting to see if any individuals who spread the photos can be found and prosecuted; now, it is in the interest of the California Highway Patrol to find as many as possible so that it may recoup its losses against them.

Key takeaways:

• The California Court of Appeal vindicated the Catsouras’s legal claims;
• The California Court of Appeal went out of its way to chastise the CHP for its conduct in this case, and for its legalistic defenses in light of the horrific facts of the case;
• The California Court of Appeal held that it is an invasion of privacy to publicize gory photos of the deceased when there is no legitimate law enforcement purpose or legitimate public interest;
• The California Court of Appeal held that the CHP and CHP officers have a duty to not unreasonably publicize photos of the deceased for their shock value;
• The California Court of Appeal held that the CHP officers were negligent and should have known better; the court held that it was entirely predictable that photos emailed to a group of friends and family for their “gruesome shock value” would be spread to a wider audience and used to torment the family;
• The California Court of Appeal held that families of the deceased can assert a right to privacy regarding photos of the deceased; the court squarely rejected CHP’s attempt to hide behind a legal doctrine suggesting that only the deceased could sue (which, of course, is impossible);
• The CHP and officers may be liable for emotional distress damages;
• There is no First Amendment issue because only the conduct of the CHP is at issue and there is no press defendant;
• The case was remanded for a trial and to calculate damages;
• The case will likely settle on terms favorable to the Catsouras family.

If you have questions about this story, please contact ReputationDefender.  Comments will be strictly moderated in light of the subject matter of the story.

Related documents: Full text of the Catsouras v CHP california court of appeal pdf opinion (Catsouras v. Department of the California Highway Patrol (G039916, G040330))