1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge settles suit accusing lawyer of threatening…

Judiciary

Judge settles suit accusing lawyer of threatening to release her intimate photos in bid to scuttle deposition

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 11, 2024, 10:46 am CDT

A Florida judge has settled her lawsuit against a lawyer she sued for allegedly trying to blackmail her with nude photos chronicling her pregnancy.

Lawyers for Judge Marni Bryson of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Florida settled her emotional-distress suit against lawyer William Scherer and his law firm, Conrad & Scherer, their lawyers told a judge during a Zoom hearing Monday. The settlement is confidential, Scherer told the ABA Journal in his only comment on the case.

Law360 covered the Sept. 9 hearing and published a story on the settlement resolving all claims, reached within weeks of the trial scheduled for Sept. 23.

Bryson had accused Scherer of sending another lawyer to her chambers to deliver the nude-photo threat during a post-divorce dispute between Bryson and her ex-husband. Scherer represented the ex-husband’s then-girlfriend, who was a “powerful lawyer/lobbyist,” according to a March 2021 story by the Florida Bulldog.

According to Bryson, she was told that her nude photos and other damaging information would be released if she insisted on taking a deposition of the then-girlfriend. She sought punitive damages against the defendants.

In an Aug. 13 motion for summary judgment, Scherer had alleged that Bryson presented no evidence of a threat, let alone any “outrageous” threat by an emissary, who was a lawyer who previously advised Bryson.

Scherer’s motion said he met with the lawyer and suggested that Bryson had to know the kind of information that would come out if the then-girlfriend was deposed, so that Bryson could decide whether to proceed. The lawyer then recounted his conversation with Scherer to Bryson, the motion says.

The alleged information possessed by the then-girlfriend included a nude photo of Bryson that the judge allegedly sent to the then-girlfriend’s ex-husband after they began a friendly relationship, the motion says. According to previous coverage by the Florida Bulldog, the nude photo allegedly showed Bryson’s pregnancy.

On Aug. 19, Bryson filed a motion in limine seeking to keep alleged “bad acts” out of evidence in the upcoming trial on the ground that they are “irrelevant and immaterial.” Scherer and his firm “have attempted to distract from the central issues in this case by making a number of irrelevant allegations to smear Judge Bryson,” the motion says.

The evidence that should be excluded includes “post-divorce bickering,” the people to whom Bryson sent photos, and “such irrelevant issues as who was sleeping with who,” the motion says.

In a footnote, the motion says one of the photos produced by the defendants “is an image of a vagina that is not Judge Bryson’s,” and “there is no conceivable basis for this image becoming part of the trial.”

Judge William L. Roby of the 19th Judicial Circuit in Florida denied the summary judgment motion Sept. 5 because it was filed too late. The Sept. 9 Zoom hearing was happening to consider Bryson’s motion to exclude evidence.

Oliver M. Birman, a lawyer representing Bryson, chose not to comment to the Journal. Gail A. McQuilkin, a lawyer representing Scherer, did not immediately respond to the Journal’s emailed request for comment. Bryson did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Warrant required for overhead zoom-lens search…

Privacy Law

Warrant required for overhead zoom-lens search that could reveal ‘intimate’ and ‘unflattering’ details, top state court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2024, 1:29 pm CDT

The Alaska Constitution requires police to get a warrant if they use binoculars or cameras with zoom lenses to look into a yard from a plane, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled.

The state supreme court ruled March 9 for John William McKelvey III, who sought to suppress evidence from a search that allegedly found marijuana plants, methamphetamine, scales, a loaded AK-47 rifle and a large amount of cash at his home north of Fairbanks, Alaska.

The Alaska Beacon, the Associated Press and Alaska’s News Source have coverage, while the Legal Profession Blog has highlights from the opinion.

Alaska state troopers focused on McKelvey after they received a tip in 2012 from an informant that he was growing marijuana on his property. The officers flew over McKelvey’s property in a plane, snapped photos using a camera with a high-powered zoom lens, and obtained a search warrant after the photos revealed buckets of unidentifiable plants in a greenhouse.

McKelvey was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a gun in connection with a drug crime.

The state supreme court said the Alaska Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures should be given a liberal interpretation because of another state constitutional provision that explicitly recognizes a right to privacy.

“The state argues that because small airplane travel is so common in Alaska and because any passenger might peer into your yard and snap a picture of you, law enforcement officials may do the same,” the Alaska Supreme Court said. “We disagree. The Alaska Constitution protects the right to be free of unreasonable searches. The fact that a random person might catch a glimpse of your yard while flying from one place to another does not make it reasonable for law enforcement officials to take to the skies and train high-powered optics on the private space right outside your home without a warrant.”

The Alaska Supreme Court said using a high-powered lens while flying overhead has the potential to reveal “intimate details,” such as “an unflattering photo of a person in a swimsuit, images of a person practicing a silly dance with their children, or expressions of religious devotion that one might not wish others to see. The mere knowledge that the government could make these kinds of detailed observations without a warrant may discourage Alaskans from using their curtilage to live their private lives.”

Two concurring justices said the Alaska Supreme Court should have gone further by requiring warrants for any plane surveillance, rather than aerial surveillance carried out with technological enhancements.