Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Pennsylvania Peeping Tom Case. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page paper discussing the legal merits of a complaint made by the cheerleaders of the Philadelphia Eagles. In January 2001, a news story surfaced detailing the long-term peeping that had gone on from the visiting team’s locker room into the adjacent locker room used by the Eagles cheerleaders. The cheerleaders filed a complaint against every NFL team and 500 John Does, complaining of voyeurism, trespass, conspiracy and several other items designed to support the complaint for voyeurism. The paper reviews two cases and two secondary sources to determine that the cheerleaders may have no case in the form they have envisioned, but that they may be able to pursue those responsible for maintenance of the stadium for the purpose of imposing accountability. Bibliography lists 6 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSlawPApeep.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
least eighteen years, the cheerleaders of the Philadelphia Eagles used a locker room adjacent to the one used by the visiting team at the Eagles home stadium. According to
the complaint lodged by the cheerleaders, in the wall separating the two locker rooms, there were "holes in the walls, cracks between doors and the walls, and a window that
has been painted but from time to time had parts that were transparent, or were rendered transparent by the players or employees of defendants." Visiting teams appear to have
been quite regular in their "peeping" at the cheerleaders in various states of undress; the cheerleaders now lodge a complaint focusing on the "peeping Tom" behavior, but including other allegations
as well. The purpose here is to assess the merits of the cheerleaders complaint. Cases In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Bartnicki and Kane v. Vopper, et al., a case dealing with journalists dissemination of information they had gained from individuals without those individuals knowing that they
were making statements that the journalists would use publicly. Superficially, it would appear that this case would have no bearing on the cheerleaders complaint. In formulating their decision,
however, the Supreme Court judges used peeping Tom law as a point of analogy. The decision states, Liability for intrusion generally attaches only where a defendant "intentionally intrudes, physically
or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns [and] . . . the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person." RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF TORTS ? 652B (1977) (Bartnicki and Kane v. Vopper, et al., 2000). In this statement lies the crux of the peeping
...