Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Pages 20-24

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 20...
... 20 principles."265 The officers were not liable for an intentional infliction of emotional distress, because their actions were not intentional, and the plaintiff did not allege or prove any physical harm or genuine and serious mental distress.266 The New York Court of Appeals held in Brown v. State,267 a class action alleging that the actions of the police in questioning only non-white males were unconstitutional, held that "a cause of action to recover damages may be asserted against the State for a violation of the Equal Protection and Search and Seizure Clauses of the Constitution."268 Following the precedent set in Bivens, the court held that there was an implied right of action: "implying a damage remedy here is consistent with the purpose underlying the duties imposed by these provisions and is necessary and appropriate to ensure the full realization of the rights they state."269 However, unlike in Bivens, an immunity defense was not available because New York had waived immunity for the acts of its officers and employees.270 Although in Brown the New York Court of Appeals recognized an implied cause of action for a violation of a right to privacy, in Augat v.
From page 21...
... 21 in federal law. For example, the FTA requires agencies receiving urbanized area grant program funds to spend 1% of the grant award on security improvements, including increased camera surveillance.
From page 22...
... 22 It is not sufficient for a plaintiff to show that the government intentionally or willfully violated the Act.299 Other than the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) 300 discussed below, no federal statutes have been identified that are implicated by government-owned or privately-owned transit agencies' use of video surveillance.301 No cases were located for this digest involving a claim under the Privacy Act or other federal statute arising out of a federal agency's use of video surveillance or the disclosure of data captured by video surveillance.
From page 23...
... 23 New Hampshire prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from using video surveillance on state highways314 but permits surveillance when "[i] t is undertaken for security and to facilitate law enforcement in the investigation of criminal activity at the state-owned park and ride facilities that provide regularly scheduled public transit service…."315 As for the state of Washington, Intercity Transit advised that the use of video by the agency creates a public record as defined by RCW 42.56.
From page 24...
... 24 Some of the state privacy laws authorize a private right of action for a violation of the statute.330 Although the state statutes generally do not distinguish between intentional and non-intentional violations, a few statutes limit a cause of action to an intentional, willful, or knowing violation of privacy. In addition, as of June 2017, all states except Alabama and South Dakota, have laws requiring that notice be given to the public if there is a security breach involving data having personal information.331 Although the breach notification statutes apply to businesses and commercial entities as defined in each statute, in at least twenty-three states, the statutes also apply to government agencies.332 The statutes typically provide that encryption is a defense to a claim for a data-breach for any missing, lost, or stolen data.333 A person injured by a data-breach has a private right of action in at least thirteen states and the 330 But see, colo.

Key Terms

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.