The Omaha World-Herald reports on a case in Nebraska concerning surreptitious audio surveillance by a wife in her home:
In a civil judgment, U.S. Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett III has ruled that Dianna Divingnzzo unlawfully recorded ex-husband William â€œDukeâ€ Lewton by inserting the device into her then-4-year-old daughter’s toy bear.Â He also found that Divingnzzo’s father, Sam, improperly transcribed conversations from Little Bear â€” and that Divingnzzo’s former attorney, William Bianco, improperly distributed copies of the recordings.
Gossett ordered Divingnzzo and her father to pay $10,000 each to everyone who could be identified on the recording, including Lewton, his then-fiancee, a neighbor, a cousin and some court-appointed workers. […]
â€œThe uncontroverted evidence shows that the bugging of Little Bear accomplished much more than simply recording oral communications to which (the child) was a party,â€ Gossett wrote. â€œRather, the device was intentionally designed to record absolutely everything that transpired in the presence of the toy.â€
Plain and simple, Gossett said, that is illegal. Under state and federal law, at least one person must consent to the recording of a conversation. […]
In time, Little Bear recorded dozens of conversations involving Lewton, the daughter, a cousin, a neighbor, an office manager and court workers overseeing the child-custody case. […]
Once the illegal recordings were discovered, Lewton went to Omaha attorney John Kinney, who filed the federal lawsuit. […]Â Kinney said the six people awarded damages may have further recourse to file invasion of privacy claims in state court.