Brette Tingle v. Troy Hebert ( 2020 )

Case: 19-30745 Document: 00515530102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 17, 2020
No. 19-30745
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Brette Tingle,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Troy Hebert, In his Individual Official Capacity as the
Commissioner of The Office of Alcohol and Tobacco
Control of the Louisiana Department of Revenue;
Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control of the
Louisiana Department of Revenue,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:15-CV-626
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and HO, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30745 Document: 00515530102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2020
No. 19-30745
Brette Tingle worked as a supervisory agent for the Louisiana Office
of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (“ATC”). During the course of an
investigation into Tingle, ATC searched his state-issued cell phone. ATC
discovered racist and sexist text messages sent by Tingle and fired him. ATC
Commissioner Troy Hebert detailed Tingle’s termination in press releases
and interviews with local news media.
Tingle responded by bringing a host of claims against both ATC and
Hebert. Following a six-day trial, the jury found in favor of ATC and Hebert
on all claims. Tingle renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law and
filed a motion for new trial, both of which the district court denied. He
launched a timely appeal.
Before us are Tingle’s claims against Hebert, both related to the
search of his state-issued cell phone: actions for invasion of privacy in
violation of the Louisiana and federal Constitution, and for defamation. We
review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter
of law. Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708 F.3d 614, 620 (5th Cir. 2013). We
will only reverse if “the jury’s factual findings are not supported by
substantial evidence, or if the legal conclusions implied from the jury’s
verdict cannot in law be supported by those findings.” Williams v. Manitowoc
Cranes, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 614 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting OneBeacon Ins. Co.
v. T. Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669, 676 (5th Cir. 2016)).
Tingle’s arguments are without merit. First, even if we assume
arguendo that Tingle had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning his
state-issued cell phone, the evidence presented at trial supports the jury’s
finding that the search was justified at its inception and not excessive in
scope. See City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 764 (2010). The
evidence also supports the jury’s conclusions that the contents of Hebert’s
communication with the media were true. See Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros.
2
Case: 19-30745 Document: 00515530102 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2020
No. 19-30745
Giant Super Markets, 390 So. 2d 196, 198 (La. 1980) (tort of defamation
requires falsity); Jaubert v. Crowley Post-Signal, Inc., 375 So. 2d 1386, 1388
(La. 1979) (claim of invasion of privacy under Louisiana Constitution
requires falsity). Finally, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that
Hebert’s conduct did not amount to an unreasonable public disclosure of
embarrassing private facts. See Jaubert, 375 So. 2d at 1389 (“An actionable
invasion of privacy occurs only when the defendant’s conduct is
unreasonable and seriously interferes with the plaintiff’s privacy interest.”)
(footnote omitted).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3