Bindinglaw

CA · jury_instructions

CACI No. 1800

Intrusion Into Private Affairs

activein force · 2023-01-01 – presentcompiled-edition

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] violated

[his/her/nonbinary pronoun] right to privacy. To establish this claim,

[name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1. That [name of plaintiff] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in

[specify place or other circumstance];

2. That [name of defendant] intentionally intruded in [specify place or

other circumstance];

3. That [name of defendant]’s intrusion would be highly offensive to a

reasonable person;

4. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and

5. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in

causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

In deciding whether [name of plaintiff] had a reasonable expectation of

privacy in [specify place or other circumstance], you should consider,

among other factors, the following:

(a) The identity of [name of defendant];

(b) The extent to which other persons had access to [specify place or

other circumstance] and could see or hear [name of plaintiff]; and

(c) The means by which the intrusion occurred.

In deciding whether an intrusion is highly offensive to a reasonable

person, you should consider, among other factors, the following:

(a) The extent of the intrusion;

(b) [Name of defendant]’s motives and goals; and

(c) The setting in which the intrusion occurred.

New September 2003; Revised June 2010

Provenance

Source
courts.ca.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-20
Edition
caci-2023
Content hash
bfd0c94712e927e76f5f94834040390b86a1597185e0d14a30b1d464680e6bca
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.