Jackie v. the Camera

Does Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis have a legal right to privacy that protects her from being pursued by a cameraman? Or does Ronald Galella, who has made a specialty out of photographing the former First Lady, have a newsman's right to dog a public figure as relentlessly as he chooses?

There is no question that Galella has been relentless. He lurked outside Jackie's apartment building, donned disguises, dated one of her maids, chased her to restaurants, barged in on one of Caroline's tennis lessons, and popped up in front of John Jr. out on a bicycle. But as Jackie and her Secret Service guards became increasingly agile at frustrating him, Galella filed a $1.3 million suit, claiming that they had prevented him from pursuing his livelihood. Jackie countersued, asking that he be ordered to stay away. Both sides provided more than 4,700 pages of often conflicting testimony, and last week Federal Judge Irving Ben Cooper announced a decision that stopped just short of ordering Galella's camera smashed.

Cooper dismissed the photographer's suit, saying Galella had "clearly" perjured himself during the trial, and that "not a single event, episode or incident was established in his favor." Cooper also ruled that henceforth Galella must stay at least 50 yards away from her, 75 yards away from the children, and 100 yards away from the family's home and schools. Nor may he communicate with them in any way.

The right of privacy is not specifically in the Constitution, but Judge Cooper followed a growing number of jurists in finding that individual privacy derives protection from, among other things, the First Amendment right of free association and the Fourth Amendment restrictions on search and seizure. Whether the right to privacy overrides the First Amendment rights of the press was not really decided, however, because Cooper suggested that Galella was more a self-aggrandizing businessman than an authentic journalist. In addition, the judge found no journalistic justification for Galella's constant surveillance: "We see no constitutional violence done by permitting defendant to prevent intrusion on her life which serves no useful purpose."

For good measure, the judge pronounced Galella guilty of contempt of court both before and during the trial and said he would fine him on three separate counts. Galella's lawyer, who was also scolded for "unprofessional conduct," said he expected to appeal.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.