1. Situation

Since the popular nighttime reality show “Cops” began in 1989, television shows aiming to expose criminals in their “natural habitats” have become a mainstream in the world. Shows like “Cops,” “To Catch a Predator,” and even “Dog the Bounty Hunter” (yes, I said it) have made a success out of filming their arrests of criminals. Though, when it comes to search and seizure laws, there are certain rules the media must obey to avoid any lawsuits or legal violations.

As in the case of Tyler Hodson v. Al Roker Entertainment, there have been court cases in which someone has sued a media organization for violating privacy rights by filming a search and seizure without obtaining written consent.

So, should a media organization have to obtain written consent from the suspect filming him or her?

2. Legal Background

In the case Hodson v. Al Roker Entertainment, plaintiff Tyler Hodson issued a lawsuit against Al Roker Entertainment for unlawfully filming and broadcasting his arrest and a search and seizure of his home on January 29, 2009. Al Roker Entertainment was presenting a show for Spike TV titled “DEA,” in which a film crew would follow drug enforcement agents as they obtain warrants and make arrests.

The episode of "DEA" aired on January 29, 2009.

On January 29, the film crew documented the DEA while it was surveying Hodsons home. When the arrest was made, Al Roker Entertainment followed agents into the home and took footage of the search, seizure and arrest. Six pounds of marijuana was found at the plaintiff’s home that day when he was arrested for drug possession.

Al Roker Entertainment and the Spike TV network returned to the residence on March 9, 2009 to take additional footage and argued that the plaintiff (Hodson) provided written consent. Though, Hodson denied expressing written concent.

In this case, Hodson had a subpoena issued so he could obtain the audio and video clips of his segment because he was involved in the criminal drug case that stemmed from his arrest on “DEA.” Hodson and his attorney believed that the footage could be beneficial to his defense in the possession case because it would show that he was wrongfully arrested. Even though Spike TV and Al Roker Entertainment provided Hodson with a “four-minute excerpt” of the footage, Hodson issued an order requesting the rest of it and Al Roker Entertainment sought an order to squash the subpoena.

In the end, the New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Al Roker Entertainment due to the Shield Law. The plaintiff (Hodson) failed to show that the footage was completely beneficial to his criminal defense (that his defense could not be a success without it). Therefore, Al Roker Entertainment’s order to squash the subpoena was granted.

3. Questions

  • Do you agree with the court’s decision? Should the court have reversed its decision and ordered Al Roker Entertainment to provide all of the footage from the show?
  • Was it necessary for the plaintiff (Hodson) to have to prove that his criminal defense was in dire need of all of the footage?
  • How would you feel if a film crew or news organization came into your house and filmed you being arrested or having your home searched? Do you feel it is constitutional?