On the evening of October 30, 2015, Edward Caban was driving for Uber and picked up Taco Bell executive Benjamin Golden. Golden was drunk and couldn’t remember where he lived. After spending a long period of time trying to find the correct location, Caban decided he had enough. He pulled over and asked Golden to leave his vehicle. But Caban had the feeling that something might happen, so he decided to turn on his phone camera to record what would happen next. The phone video recorded Golden beating Caban and Caban pepper spraying Golden.
In November, Golden was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault and battery. Caban then filed a civil suit against Golden for assault, battery and infliction of emotional distress. The damages in his suit totaled a little more than $25,000.
About one month later, Golden responded to the lawsuit AND filed a countersuit for $5 million. How could Golden sue Caban when Caban’s video recording clearly shows Golden’s illegal conduct? The recording was taken without Golden’s permission.
What Is California's Two-Party Consent Law?
Most states and the District of Columbia have wiretap and privacy laws preventing the recording of confidential communications unless at least one party involved in the conversation grants permission. Confidential communications refers to any conversation that a reasonable person would assume should be kept confidential. Conversations in public, for example, would not usually be considered confidential.
Only 12 states, including California, require the consent of all the parties involved in the conversation. The altercation between Golden and Caban took place in Southern California.
Through this law, Golden filed his $5 million lawsuit against Caban. If someone is in violation of California Penal Code 632, part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), they may have to pay a fine of up to $2500 and/or go to jail for a year, and they can be sued for other civil damages. Furthermore, evidence collected in violation of this law is not admissible in court, unless the evidence is used to show that this particular law was violated.
Golden lost his job because the video went public. He also claims that the video has caused him emotional distress and has prevented him from obtaining employment.
Why Is California Still a Two-Party Consent State?
Although Golden’s recent lawsuit has given the CIPA a bad rap, the law has done a lot of good for privacy and consumer protections. California remains one of the best states for privacy protections. The intent of the legislature was to prevent eavesdropping and the invasion of privacy, given the advancement of such technologies.
Consumer rights groups have also filed several class action suits against collection agencies who had recorded debtors without their consent. The lawsuits have forced most businesses to notify the people they call that all calls are monitored, whether they are for quality assurance or other reasons.
In the case of Caban and Golden, most would consider Golden’s countersuit a mistake. Had Golden remained apologetic and accepted responsibility for his actions in court, the general public would have forgotten about the incident after a month. However, now that Golden has countersued, the trial continues and Golden’s name remains in the limelight for very negative reasons. It is doubtful whether a judge or jury would remain sympathetic with Golden’s plight. Even if Caban had violated the law, I doubt that the court would penalize him with the maximum punishment. Instead, Golden will simply remain an entitled drunk with the money to sue his battered victim.
Authored by Emily Yu, LegalMatch Legal Writer
Comments