4

An active duty member sets up a household goods move and the government sends it to a civilian contractor. The contractor completes a video walk through to get an estimate of the household goods. Later employees from the civilian contractor come to start packing up the active duty member's house.

The contractor's employees ask the active duty member to show them what is going to be moved and then go outside to get their materials. Unbeknownst to the military member one of the contractor's employees took photos of active duty member's household goods and sent them to the civilian contractor.

At a later date, a disagreement occurred between the contractor's employees and the active duty member. A result of the disagreement resulted in the contractor forwarding the photos to the government housing group and later to the government leadership of the active duty member.

Because of this, the active duty member was reprimanded for not having things better organized for the movers to "easily" move.

Can the active duty member get reparations or damages from the contractors who took photos without permission and sent them to other agencies in the government? Has a crime occurred of invasion of privacy? Was it a government contact and therefore illegal search and invasion?

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13

These photos do not appear to have been taken in a non-permissive entry onto the premises, so the Fourth Amendment privacy protections would not apply even if a government official and not a civilian contractor had taken the photos. The contractor doing the walk through (and apparently everyone else) had permission to be there. Separate permission to take photos is not required.

Can the member get reparations or damages from the contractors who took photos without permission and sent them to other agencies in the government, who then reprimanded the active duty member for not having things better organized for movers to "easily" move?

No.

Has a crime occurred of invasion of privacy?

No.

Was it a government contact and therefore illegal search and invasion?

No.

Improve this answer
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Oct 22 at 22:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .