Originally Posted by platbrownguy

I don't disagree with the ultimate point you're making. The phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is IME a 4th Amendment term of art, and my response above was simply pointing out that AA can't be held liable for violating a constitutional right. Your lav-cams would almost certainly be enough for negligence or intrusion upon seclusion or some other tort. Which is why the crux of this case is, as Vegas points out, whether AA's decision to turn over only one pax's into in response to an otherwise valid warrant is negligent. Thankfully for the pax, that's a fact question that a jury gets to decide, and AA probably doesn't want to let that happen.