Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle allege paparazzi aggressively followed them in New York. Court cases involving Jackie Onassis and Justin Bieber underscore the risks.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, alarmed the world this week by stating that they were “involved in a near-catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi” in New York City, echoing the deadly pursuit of Princess Diana.
Exactly what happened remains opaque. Photographers at the scene have disputed the couple’s report, saying there were no “near-crashes” and the Sussexes weren’t in any immediate danger.
Nonetheless, the incident raises questions about the laws governing what paparazzi may or may not do.
At one end of the spectrum, paparazzi, like any news media gatherers or members of the public, are perfectly free to capture photographs of celebrities from vantage points open to the public, including the sidewalks of New York. Any celebrity visible in public spaces may be photographed freely.
At the other end of the spectrum, paparazzi, like any news gatherers or members of the public, possess no “get out of jail free” cards when they violate generally applicable criminal or civil laws. The 1st Amendment does not provide a license to trespass on private property or threaten bodily harm in the pursuit of newsworthy photographs or information.
But how does the law draw the line in the intermediate space, in which paparazzi relentlessly swarm and stalk celebrities in public spaces, without engaging in any actual trespass, or overtly threatening physical harm? Surprisingly few judicial decisions have explored this conundrum. Two cases, however, provide useful insights.
In the 1970s, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was aggressively pursued by photographer Ronald Galella, once dubbed the “godfather of U.
