Property Case Brief # 2

Title and Citation: Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc,

44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995)
Identities of Parties: (P) Desnick employees (2) ophthalmic
surgeons employed by a clinic, appeal their suit against (D) American
Broadcasting Companies.
Procedural History: (P) suit against (D) for trespass, defamation were
dismissed so they appealed to the United States court of appeals for
the seventh circuit (federal court)
Facts: (P) Employees of the ABC television network (D) were sent by
the producer of Primetime Live, one of its shows, to various offices of a
regional ophthalmic clinic called the Desnick Eye Center (Desnick) (P)
to help conduct an investigation for the show. The ABC employees
posed as patients and requested eye examinations, but were equipped
with hidden cameras and videotaped the conversations they had with
employees of Desnick. Desnick filed suit, claiming that ABC committed
a trespass when its employees gained access to the Desnick offices by
failing to divulge the true reasons for their visits. The district court
dismissed Desnicks lawsuit. Desnick appealed.
Issue(s): (A) Does the act of entering onto the property of a business
by way of misrepresenting or failing to disclose ones purposes
constitute unlawful trespassing?
Did the fact that P consent to enter premises was procured under
false pretenses render the consent invalid such that Ds were
trespassers?
Holding and Rule: No, the act of entering onto the property does not
constitute unlawful trespassing.
When one entering property with consent under false pretenses,
there is no claim for trespass unless the specific interest that the
tort of trespass is designed to protect (namely, interference with
the ownership or possession of land) has been invaded.
Courts Reasoning: No. ABCs entry into the various offices of
Desnick does not constitute unlawful trespassing. If an entry does not
interfere with the property interests that the tort of trespass seeks to
protectthe owners possession of his propertyit is not unlawful.
ABCs entry did not interfere with Desnicks ownership and possession
of his property. The offices were open to anyone interested in eye
examinations and the ABC employees did not videotape anything
private, only their own conversation with Desnick employees in a

professional setting. Additionally, office activities were not disturbed

and there was no other infringement of Desnicks private space or
ability to conduct business. Therefore, ABCs entry into the Desnick
offices was not unlawful.
Judgment and Order: The dismissal by the district court is affirmed.