Everyone needs a certain level of privacy. Some more than others, I suppose. Where are you on this issue? In California, we’ve always had strict privacy laws, obviously stemming from the paparrazzi and the many celebrities living in the area. But, even for the rest of us, the laws clearly favor the home owner and our “inalienable” right to privacy.

Below, I’ve included an excerpt discussing the California Law regarding home privacy and I hope it helps you when trying to determine where to live and what features of the home that you would like to have already have built-in, or could possibly be added on later.

Here you go:

California’s anti-paparazzi law purports to create two new privacy torts: “physical invasion of privacy” and “constructive invasion of privacy.” But in many ways the new law is duplicative of existing California law. Much of the conduct that appears to be prohibited by the anti-paparazzi law already was prohibited by existing California law. For example, California has long recognized “trespass” as a tort. Thus, even before the anti-paparazzi statute was passed, any person-not just a celebrity-could sue a photojournalist or other member of the media for entering his or her private property without permission. Similarly, existing California law already recognized the tort of “intrusion”. Privacy is an “inalienable right” under the California Constitution, and courts already allowed lawsuits to proceed under various theories for invasion of that right. Other existing protections against claimed “abuses” by the media include statutory and common law prohibitions against assault, battery, false imprisonment, stalking, and surreptitious audio or video recording of “confidential communications.”

In light of this previously-existing law, the statute’s first “new” tort, for “physical invasion of privacy,” does not appear on its face to broaden prohibited conduct. Under the statute, a person may sue for “physical invasion of privacy” when (1) a person has knowingly entered the land of another without permission; (2) the entry was made with the “intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression” of another person engaging in a “personal or familial activity”; and (3) the invasion was made “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” Because the physical intrusion onto another person’s private property already constitutes trespass, this part of the statute arguably does not encompass conduct that otherwise would have been permissible. You can read the rest of the article here.

Interesting stuff, huh? I think it’s really important to know the actual truth of the law before it may actually have to be known, rather than learn about it after the fact and the damage is already done. So, you can file this in your “nice to know ahead of time” folder for safe keeping…

Well, another week gone by… I hope that you have a great weekend! I plan to!

Until next post,

Tracey

p.s. If you are local and reading this, be sure to leave your thoughts below in the comments section on the level of privacy that you are personally witnessing in California with regards to your own home, or that of friends… It will definitely be interesting to everyone! Thanks so much!

p.s.s.  Don’t forget to head over and check out my website and all the new listings at Santa Monica Real Estate