GEORGE H. BENFORD V. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., and Mrs. Isaac (Betty) Hamburger and Miss Kathleen T. Gardner and Mrs. Lillian M. Teitelbaum and David L. Holton and Margaret Osmer. Civ. A. No. N-79-2386. United States District Court, D. Maryland. Nov. 14, 1980. Insurance agent brought suit alleging that the surreptitious taping and the broadcasting of a meeting, at which he presented his standard cancer insurance promotion to two undercover special senior citizen investigators of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging, violated the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, the Fourth Amendment, the federal eavesdropping statute, and constituted the common-law torts of civil conspiracy, malicious interference with business relations, and invasion of privacy. On the congressional defendants' motion for summary judgment, the District Court, Northrop, Chief Judge, held that neither the taping of a meeting nor the subsequent broadcasting of portions thereof on ABC nightly news was absolutely protected by either the speech or debate clause or the doctrine of official immunity; however, upon showing that the taping and broadcasting were properly authorized, the congressional defendants would be entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity; this defense would protect defendants only if they met their burden of proving that they acted reasonably and in good faith. Order accordingly. See also, D.C., 502 F.Supp. 1159. 1. Telecommunications United States 12 498 Neither the surreptitious taping of meeting at which insurance agent presented his standard cancer insurance promotion to two undercover special senior citizen investigators of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging, nor the subsequent broadcasting of portions of the taped meeting on ABC nightly news was absolutely protected by either the speech or debate clause or the doctrine of official immunity; however, upon showing that the taping and broadcasting were properly authorized, the congressional defendants would be entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity in the insurance agent's action claiming that the taping and broadcasting violated the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, the Fourth Amendment, the federal eavesdropping statute, and constituted common-law tort, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 et seq.; Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 10-401 et seq.; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1; Amend. 4. Speech or debate clause was included in the Constitution to insure the independence of the legislative branch and to protect legislators not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. Speech or debate clause protects legislative aides as well as the legislators themselves; however, the protection afforded aides may not be as great as that afforded the legislators. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. 4. United States 12 Heart of the speech or debate clause is speech or debate in either house; insofar as the clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which members participate in committee and house proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. 5. United States 12 Speech or debate clause does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative process. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. Broadcasting of surreptitiously taped meetings, at which an insurance agent presented his standard cancer insurance promotion to two undercover special senior citizen investigators of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging, was not an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes of the Select Committee, and was thus not absolutely protected by the speech or debate clause, notwithstanding the congressional defendants' contention that the publication was justified in furtherance of the "informing function" of Congress. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 1. 7. United States 12 "Informing function" of Congress is not to be used as a means of protecting the publication of materials injurious to private individuals. 8. United States 212, 50, 52 Although the legislative branch has broad investigatory power, a member of Congress or a congressional employee is not free to use every conceivable means to obtain investigatory materials, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil suit. |