Newsstand - $1.5M Suit Against Marriott for Hidden Camera in Bathroom

An Ohio man filed a $1.5 million lawsuit Tuesday against the Knoxville Marriott hotel after finding a hidden camera in a bathroom light fixture in July.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_1438232,00.html

Please also see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum63/HTML/002035.html

While video surveillance in your hotel room is certainly wrong, I'm not sure this incident is worth $1.5 Million. The guy claims to be scared to travel now. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Hey, many years ago, some guy was in a stall in the bathroom at work when his boss peaked over the top to see what he was doing. This guy said he had trouble sleeping and fear of using public bathrooms. He cleaned up big time.

I don't know what the proper amount would be, but they ought to be punished for this affront to public decency.

It seems to me that a lawsuit against the hotel is pre-mature. According to the article it was a self contained camera. this could have been placed by anyone, such as someone who runs a hidden camera porn website. This person could go back to the same room every month or so and retrieve the tape and put in a new one. If this is the case where does the hotels responsibility begin and end? Will it become the responsibility of every hotel to run some type of sweep of every room to insure no one placed a camera to spy? Who do you think is going to pay for that? It will be added onto our bill as a security tax or surcharge.

It does make you think though. I guess we better watch what we do in the privacy of your hotel room.



------------------
"I have made up my mind, please do not confuse me with the facts"

I have ALWAYS tried to be conscious of the fact that when staying in a hotel, there are security cameras everywhere, even in my hotel room. I am not aware of any laws against hotels doing this, and while the shocking nature of this particular incident, in the bathroom, would likely result in a favorable verdict were it to come before a jury, it's not clear to me what specific laws the hotel is breaking.

There are LOTS of laws against placing hidden cameras in places where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy. But even if no criminal laws were broken, an injured person can almost always sue for damages in civil court. This case is essentially a no-brainer. I would guess that the hotel's only possible defense is that it had no knowledge of the camera, which may in fact be true. It could be the work of a rogue employee, which raises important legal questions on which I predict the hotel would ultimately lose. An interesting factual question will be whether cameras are found in other rooms. We'll see.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SRQ Guy:
While video surveillance in your hotel room is certainly wrong, I'm not sure this incident is worth $1.5 Million. The guy claims to be scared to travel now. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif</font>

Yeah, I like how all the problems he's having are impossible to prove, like that he "checks every inch" of hotel rooms he's in now, or whatever.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
There are LOTS of laws against placing hidden cameras in places where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy.</font>

bdschobel of course hits the nail on the head. This certainly is the metric used when determining admissability of recorded evidence in a criminal court (for example, the police may record you without your permission or knowledge and use it against you when you're in a public place, but need a warrant to do so when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in your own home or a public restoom).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">An interesting factual question will be whether cameras are found in other rooms. We'll see.</font>

My guess is that there indeed were cameras found in other rooms. The fact that the hotel conducted a search of other rooms but refuses to discuss the findings seems suspicious. More telling, the fact that the camera allegedly had a label on it that indicated the room number is very interesting: if you planted a camera in a single room, why would you go to the trouble to label the camera with the room number?

Regarding the plaintiff's contentions about what this has done to their travel habits, this is perhaps a textbook example of the old phrase: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you."

Amazing story. Be interesting to read updates as it develops.

------------------
~ Glen ~ Calling all United 1K Members - please join .. www.1Kflyers.com (http://www.1Kflyers.com)