CASE NO. 1
MN COURT OF APPEALS
BIXBY v. THOMPSON
Parties:
Appellant – Eric Bixby
Respondent – Anthony Thompson
Issues:
(1)
Was a photographer, while investigating criminal activity, engaged in
“stalking” or harassing behaviors, as defined by Minnesota Statute?
(2)
Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the First Amendment protects
a newspaper photographer from criminal penalties for harassing and stalking.
Facts:
Eric Bixby appeals a civil penalty for stalking and harassment under Minn. Stat.
Ann. §609.749.
In August, 2011, adult-entertainment club owner and millionaire, Anthony
Thompson, declared that he would run for US Senator. Following the
announcement, everywhere he went, Thompson was followed by Eric Bixby, an
investigative reporter for the Twin Cities Herald. Bixby believed that Thompson was
an organized crime boss involved with campaign finance fraud and was looking for
an opportunity to prove it.
No matter where Thompson went, Bixby followed. When Thompson went jogging in
the park, Bixby followed behind on a moped. When Thompson joined a gym, Bixby
would get a membership pass and wait with a camera in the sauna. Thompson was
forced to change his schedule constantly and continually alter the way he drove to
his club in order to avoid Bixby.
In one instance, after Thompson had asked a maitre’d to remove Bixby from
underneath the table, Bixby shouted: “You’re going down Thompson! I don’t know
how, but I’ll get you!”
On October 12, 2011, Thompson held a fund-raising dinner in Walton Park, a St.
Paul city park. Bixby, disguising himself as a member of the catering team, planted
microphones in the floral arrangements around the dining area. Before the dinner
started, Bixby hid in a tree with a tape recorder and a camera with a telephoto lens.
Just after the main course was served, Thompson moved away from the main area
of the party and began talking with James Kendrick, a purported mobster. “I
thought you might like to have a little more ‘help’ with your campaign.”, Kendrick
said to Thompson. “With a little more help like that, I know I’ll be Senator” said
Thompson as he thumbed through what appeared to be an envelope of cash.
Meanwhile, Bixby, with his hidden microphone and camera, was able to observe
and record the entire conversation. When the photos and recordings were
published, Thompson’s campaign ended.
While facing criminal charges for election fraud, Thompson pressed charges against
Bixby under the Minnesota Civil Harassment and Stalking Statute, Minn. Stat. Ann.
§609.749. At trial, Bixby was found to have engaged in conduct which constituted
harassment and stalking. Bixby received a stayed sentence but appealed the
decision. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has granted the review.
Authorities:
The following is a brief summary of some things you should think about and keep in
mind when you read the cases and as you prepare your briefs and arguments. You
are not limited to these points. Instead, consider them good starter questions to
think about. You will also notice some cases attached. No further research is
necessary.
Summary:
Issue #1 – Stalking or Harassing Behaviors
What are the elements of the offense Bixby is charged with?
Was the reporter engaged in the activity alleged by the statute? Why or why
not?
What were Bixby’s intentions?
Does the statute require that Thompson feel threatened? Did he feel threatened?
Was that a reasonable fear?
Issue #2 – First Amendment Protection for Harassment and Stalking
What kind of person is Thompson – a public person or private person?
Did the press seek out Thompson or did Thompson seek out the press?
Does a public figure give up any rights to privacy?
As a member of the press, can Bixby be charged criminally for doing his job?
Thompson was engaged in clearly criminal activity. Is there a right to privacy for
criminal activity?
Did the press use “extraordinary methods” of obtaining information about alleged
criminal activity? Should information gathered from “extraordinary methods”
be considered a violation of a person’s right to privacy?
Cases and Related Materials:
US Constitution, Amendment I
Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.749
Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corporation, 113 F.2d 806 (1940)
Galella v. Onassis, 353 F. Supp. 196 (1972)
Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668 (1987)