AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defamation
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 1, 2018 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 2, 2018 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 3, 2018 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A married couple convicted of tax offenses sued an FBI agent and an IRS agent for defamation for statements they made in comments to local news stations. The trial court denied discovery on the issue of whether the agents acted within the scope of their employment, substituted the U.S. government as the proper defendant, and dismissed the lawsuit for failure to file an administrative claim before suing, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. A federal appeals court ruled that the offending statements were made in the scope of the agents’ employment; and the plaintiffs had no right to even limited discovery, because they failed to allege any facts that, taken as true, suggested that the agents acted outside of the scope of their employment. They failed to claim that the interviews were not intended, at least in part, to serve the FBI and IRS. Bolton v. United States, #18-60700, 946 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2019).
A man sued the U.S. government, contending that it violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by accusing him of a crime during a criminal proceeding in which he was not a defendant. The trial court properly granted the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The claim accrued when the accusation was first made. His mistaken belief that his claim had not yet accrued until he was either notified that he would not be indicted (or such an indictment was time barred), the reason he did not file suit earlier, did not serve to toll (extend) the time period to sue, so his claims were barred by a six year statute of limitations. Doe v. United States, #16-20567, 853 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 2017).
As a man was finishing his elected
term as county sheriff, his 14-year-old stepdaughter accused hin of having
sexually abused her while assisting her in applying chigger medicine. A city
police officer interviewed the daughter, and a state child protective agency
notified state police, resulting in an interview of the daughter by a state
police investigator. The sheriff denied the accusation, and the girl's sister,
another stepdaughter, said her sister was lying because the sheriff and her
mother were too strict. The first stepdaughter recanted her accusations and a
prosecutor decided not to press charges, but the accusation became widely known
in th community. The state police investigator allegedly talked about the case
to a lot of people with whom he had no right to share the details of the
investigation, and rumors flew, including a false story that the sheriff was an
arsonist. The ex-sheriff filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state
police investigator and his supervisor, claiming that their actions had denied
him his right to liberty in his occupation of choice, in violation of due
process. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants,
ruling that the plaintiff had failed to show that any liberty interest was
interfered with. Even if the defendants defamed him, they did nothing that
altered his legal status. Further, the defendants were not shown to have placed
the plaintiff's name on a list that, under a state statute, would have ended
his previously granted right to serve in positions of law enforcement
management. His argument that the alleged defamation rendered him unqualified
under state law to serve in law enforcement was negated by the fact that he
subsequently received a state license for work as a private investigator.
Hinkle v. White, #14-2254, 793 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2015).
The owner of a local
weekly newspaper filed a defamation and First Amendment retaliation lawsuit in
federal court claiming that a city mayor took action against him because of his
publication of material critical of the town's alleged corruption, fiscal
mismanagement, and police brutality. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, a
federal appeals court ruled that state law defamation was not actionable in
federal court and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the mayor's
criticism of him at a campaign event as a "convicted drug dealer,"
"Albanian mobster," "thug," and person planning to open
"drug dens" and "strip clubs" if the mayor was not
re-elected, even if false, did not "actually chill" the newspaper's
exercise of its rights as required for a First Amendment retaliation claim
against a public official. Zherka v. Amicone, #10-37, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 3944
(2nd Cir.).
An Ohio man's defamation lawsuit against a police
department, based on an assertion that someone from the department was telling
people in various places around the country that he was a "hit man,"
could not be the basis of liability. First, the police department could not be
sued, as it was not a separate entity from the city. Second, the plaintiff
failed to allege that the city's conduct was covered by any stated exceptions
to the tort immunity provided for political subdivisions under Ohio state
statutes. Additionally, since the plaintiff failed to name any individual city
employees as defendants, he was unable to argue that the statements were made
outside of the scope of employment or the pursuit of official duties that were
covered by the tort immunity statute. Watson v. City of Akron, C.A. No. 27077,
2008 Ohio App. Lexis 4208 (Ohio App. 9th Dist.).
A detective's passing on, to a newspaper, details
of an arrest warrant for a man which subsequently turned out to be dismissed,
resulting in the publication of his name within a "Most Wanted" list,
did not fall within any exception to immunity from liability provided by an
Ohio state statute, so that defamation claims against the city and the detective
were properly rejected. There was no showing that the detective had any
knowledge that warrants in the department's files were likely to be inaccurate.
Miller v. Central Ohio Crime Stoppers, Inc., No. 07AP-669, 2008 Ohio App. Lexis
1110 (Ohio App. 10th Dist.).
A twelve-year-old child was interrogated away from his
mother and a prosecutor then ordered police to arrest him in connection with
the death of a toddler. His conviction was subsequently overturned on the basis
of a coerced confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He subsequently
filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and her employer
for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. After the
lawsuit was filed, the prosecutor allegedly told a Marine recruiter that the
plaintiff would "always" be a suspect in the murder, resulting in the
rejection of his enlistment. A federal appeals court overturned qualified
immunity for the prosecutor, ruling that the prosecutor could not reasonably
have believed that there was probable cause for the arrest. The court also
ordered further proceedings on claims against the county based on its alleged
withholding of exculpatory (Brady) materials, and on the Plaintiff's malicious
prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, and defamation claims. Harris v.
Bornhorst, No. 06-3729, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 724 (6th Cir.).
Chief of Police was properly held liable for
damages of $200,000 to restaurant owners of Lebanese descent for his actions in
making numerous statements in public asserting that they were terrorists,
gunrunners, and drug dealers, as well as "associated with" Osama Bin
Laden. These statements, made in a restaurant setting, caused some restaurant
patrons to stop frequenting the plaintiffs' business. The court found that the
amount awarded was not excessive on the plaintiffs' defamation claims. Yammine
v. De Vita, No. 501649, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 8862 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
City and police officials were immune under
California state law from defamation claims asserted by high school basketball
coach detained on the basis of an accusation that he had sexually molested a
former team member. Under a state statute they were immune on defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for statements made in the
course of a criminal investigation, whether those statements were reasonable or
malicious. There was, however, no similar immunity on false arrest claims, and
there was no probable cause for the coach's arrest since the accusations
against him lacked sufficient indications of reliability. Gillan v. City of San
Marino, No. B182979, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 222 (2d Dist.).
City did not violate convicted child molester's
due process rights by barring him from entry or use of municipal park property,
facilities, and programs after he was seen looking at others in the park
through binoculars, with a camera in his possession. Essentially labeling him
as a possible present threat to children, which he claimed was defamatory, was
also insufficient to state a federal civil rights claim. The action barring
him, additionally, was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest
in protecting children. Brown v. Michigan City, Indiana, No. 05-3912, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 22567 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Nov]
Arrestee's "conclusory allegations"
that police officers made "slanderous" statements about him which
resulted in "lost friendships, lost livelihood, lost time, and physical
injuries" were not sufficient to state a claim for violation of his
federal civil rights. Gill v. Texas, No. 04-10497, 153 Fed. Appx. 261 (5th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Police department's alleged retention of
"fictitious" criminal information about a woman could not be the
basis for a federal civil rights lawsuit. Even if this claim were true, the
filing of false information at most states a claim for libel or defamation, a
state law claim, not a violation of constitutional rights. Mensah v. Darby
Borough Police Department, No. 05-2193, 145 Fed. Appx. 742 (3rd Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Police release of details about man's criminal
record to the press after he was fatally shot by a police officer could not be
the basis for a federal civil rights claim for harm to his reputation, nor did
false statements allegedly made about the circumstances of the shooting support
a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by the
decedent's family, although a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress brought by members of the decedent's family who witnessed the shooting
was viable. The decedent did not suffer specific harm to his employment,
education, professional licensing or insurance opportunities based on the
statements made about him, and under New York law had no protectable liberty
interest in his reputation which survived his death. Sylvester v. City of New
York, No. 03 Civ. 8760, 385 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
In a lawsuit by animal protection volunteers
against employees of a government investigating commission who allegedly
published defamatory material about them on a government website, the claim was
time barred by a one-year New Jersey statute of limitations for defamation
claims. The statute of limitations began to run on the date the material was
first published on the website, and that time period was not extended by the
fact that the website was subsequently updated or modified while continuing to
contain the same allegedly defamatory material. Churchill v. State of New
Jersey, 876 A.2d 311 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005). [N/R]
Florida father, in being allegedly erroneously
labeled as a "verified" child abuser, even if it did prevent him and
his wife from adopting additional children, did not suffer deprivation of a
constitutionally protected due process liberty or property interest. His claim
was merely for defamation and injury to reputation, standing alone, cannot be
the basis for a federal civil rights lawsuit. Behrens v. Regier, No. 04-14820,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18807 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Plaintiff's federal civil rights lawsuit seeking
damages for the release by police of allegedly false information concerning his
conduct to the press, which had their origin in his ex-wife's claim that he had
violated the terms of a restraining order was properly dismissed on the
pleadings. It essentially asserted a claim for defamation, which cannot be
pursued as a federal civil rights cause of action. Pasdon v. City of Peabody,
No. 04-2314, 417 F.3d 225 (1st Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Statements made by county attorney about a
defendant in a press release and press conference after charges of murder
against him were dropped were not protected by absolute immunity since they
were not made incidental to the termination of the judicial proceeding. There
were genuine issues as to whether or not the statements were opinion protected
by the First Amendment, and whether the statements, stating that the former
defendant had committed the murder, were made with actual malice. Federal trial
court denies summary judgment to defendant county and county attorney in former
defendant's libel and slander lawsuit under Iowa state law. Harrington v.
Wilber, No. 4:03-CV-90616, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (S.D. Iowa 2005). [N/R]
Oklahoma state law enforcement officers and state
could not be held liable for search of business under warrant seeking evidence
of drug trafficking. Probable cause for the warrant existed when search warrant
affidavit stated that law enforcement agent personally purchased a product
containing a controlled substance at the business premises. Employee of business
who was allegedly misidentified as the business owner in statements to the
press by a law enforcement agent could not recover damages for defamation when
the statement was made on the basis of state tax records and any
misrepresentation was unintentional. Tanique, Inc. v. Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics, No. 99,091, 99 P.3d 1209 (Okla. Civ. App. Div. 2 2004). [N/R]
Business owners who claimed that their business
reputation and good will in the community were damaged by defamatory statements
allegedly made by city's mayor about the physical condition of their business
premises could not recover damages for violation of their civil rights.
Defamatory statements and the alleged damages, standing alone, were not
sufficient to constitute a "state imposed burden" sufficient to
support a federal civil rights claim. Sadallah v. City of Utica, No. 03-9055,
383 F.3d 34 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Deputy sheriff was properly awarded $225,000 in damages
against newspaper, its editor/publisher, and a columnist, based on articles
which called him a "murderer" and accused him of beating a handcuffed
arrestee to death with a flashlight. Georgia appeals court finds that
statements were published with knowledge that they were false, or in reckless
disregard of the truth. Lake Park Post, Inc. v. Farmer, #A03A0841, 590 S.E.2d
254 (Ga. App. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
Statute of limitations barred defamation claims
brought by grand jury witness against deputy district attorney and county based
on statements made to author of book allegedly falsely describing her as a
"felony probationer." The time within which to bring the defamation
lawsuit started to run, at the latest, when the book was published and
distributed to the public, and was not extended based on the fact that the
plaintiff allegedly did not discover that the material was in the book until
she subsequently read it. Shively v. Bozanich, No. S094467, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d
576, 80 P.3d 676 (Cal. 2003). [N/R]
State investigator's allegedly defamatory
statements to the FBI concerning an FBI agent's purported addiction to
drugs and homosexual relationship with his psychiatrist were insufficient to
support a federal civil rights claim for violation of his protected liberty
interests in his employment. Defamation itself is not a constitutional claim,
and an injury to reputation does not violate a protected liberty interest, nor
does the disclosure of medical records. "Even an allegation of diminished
employment opportunities resulting from harm to reputation is insufficient to
state a due process claim." Walker v. Wilson, No. 01-6455, 67 Fed. Appx.
854 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Police detective was not liable for either
defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress under District of
Columbia law for issuance of a press release identifying the plaintiff as
having been involved in a murder, along with the arrestee's picture. The
issuance of such press releases was within the scope of the duties of police
investigators and it did not cause economic or physical harm to the plaintiff.
Further, the release of the information involved the public's right to
information and public safety. Liser v. Smith, 254 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C.
2003). [N/R]
City and county were not liable for defamation
based upon mistaken depiction of plaintiff's photograph from his pistol permit
application as being a suspected murderer with the same name. The defendants
had a constitutional privilege against liability for defamation under New York
state law in the absence of any evidence that they acted in a "grossly
irresponsible manner." The plaintiff also could not recover against the
defendants under a theory of negligence in supplying the photograph to a
television network. Colon v. City of Rochester, 762 N.Y.S.2d 749 (A.D. 4th Dept.
2003). [N/R]
Ohio police officer could not obtain damages for
defamation based on civil rights organization's actions in distributing a
letter which accused the police department of "killing, raping, planting
false evidence," and himself of using a "marine-style chokehold"
to kill an unarmed suspect. Statements in the letter were opinions protected
under the free speech provisions of the Ohio state constitution. An average
reader, the court holds, "would be unlikely to infer that the statements were
meant to be factual," since the entire letter "was a call to action
and meant to cause outrage in the reader," and the particular statements
were "clearly hyperbole, the opinion of the writer, and were offered to
persuade the reader that an immediate crisis was occurring in the city."
The court also noted that the letter did include reference to the outcome of a
trial in which the officer was found not guilty on an assault charge and a
mistrial was declared on an involuntary manslaughter charge. Jorg v. Cincinnati
Black United Front, No. C-030032, 792 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio App. 1st Dist. 2003).
[N/R]
A county police department could not be liable to
an arrestee for defamation for making published statements that he had been
taken into custody for alleged theft of services in not paying a disputed bill.
The fact that the statements were true barred liability for libel or slander,
even if they did damage to the arrestee's reputation. Truth is an
"absolute defense" to defamation claims. Carlton v. Nassau County
Police Dept., 761 N.Y.S.2d 98 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Police chief's statements calling a resident a
"gang banger" were not "slander per se" because they did
not accuse him of any specific criminal activity, and could either refer to an
actual member of a street gang or a "wannabe," which adds up to
"nothing more than innuendo." Anderson v. City of Troy, #01-761, 68
P.3d 805 (Mont. 2003). [N/R]
Police detective reasonably relied on
complainant's information in submitting applications for arrest warrants for
charging man with attempted residential entry and rape, despite inconsistencies
in her story and suspect's protestations of innocence. Statements of another
detective to the press essentially repeating this information could not be the
basis, under Indiana state law, for a defamation claim, as they were not made
with knowing falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. Beauchamp v. City
of Noblesville, Indiana, No. 02-2568, 320 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR
Jun]
Arrestee could not pursue defamation claim
against police chief for statements to reporters which were either true or had
not been proven to be false. Additionally, the chief's statement that the
arrestee had received training in the army as a sniper, even if it were shown
to be false, was not defamatory, and his statements of pure opinion could not
be the basis of a defamation lawsuit. Yoge v. Nugent, #01-2131, 321 F.3d 35
(1st Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity from
liability for a decision to prosecute, even if it was purportedly based on an
inadequate police investigation. Prosecutor was only entitled, however, to
qualified immunity for making statements to the media, but did not violate any
clearly established constitutional rights when all that was communicated was
the fact of the arrest, even if that caused the arrestee to be held up to
ridicule and scorn. Joseph v. Yocum, #01-4142, 53 Fed. Appx. 1 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Former FBI associate director could not pursue, in
federal court in Texas, a defamation claim against a New York university
professor on the basis of his article, published on the Internet on the
university's website, claiming that he was involved in a "conspiracy"
to "cover up" advance warning allegedly received by the U.S.
government of the terrorist bombing of a flight over Lockerbee, Scotland in
1988. Publication on the website was not sufficient to give personal
jurisdiction over the defendant to a court in Texas. Revell v. Lidov,
#01-10521, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
A newspaper article which was a satire or parody
that, if believed, conveyed a false or defamatory impression was not protected
under the First Amendment as merely an opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, but
could be the basis for a defamation claim if a reasonable reader could have
believed that it was making statements of fact. District Attorney and judge
could pursue claim against newspaper for publishing an article with a made up
story suggesting that they might prosecute and try a first grader for writing a
book report about a children's story since it contained an "implication of
violence." New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, No. 02-01-023-CV, 91 S.W.3d 844
(Tex. App. Ft. Worth, 2002). [N/R]
Virginia prison warden could not pursue, in
Virginia federal court, defamation claims against Connecticut newspapers for
publishing articles, also posted on their Internet sites, concerning
Connecticut state policy of housing some prisoners in Virginia correctional
facilities. No personal jurisdiction over defendants solely on the basis of the
posting of the articles on the Internet when there was no intention to reach
Virginia readers. Young v. New Haven Advocate, No. 01-2340, 315 F.3d 256 (4th
Cir. 2002). [N/R]
A police officer's report that a correctional
officer was "disorderly" was insufficient to state a federal civil
rights claim for injury to the correctional officer's reputation, based on the
village's communication to the plaintiff's employer of the report. Defamation
alone is insufficient to state a federal civil rights claim and a cause of
action would only exist if the plaintiff could show stigma to his reputation,
plus other injury. In this case, injury to reputation was all that was shown.
Ruggiero v. Phillips, 739 N.Y.S.2d 797 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
347:164 Officer's statement to school
secretary and "we have a complaint about one of your teachers" did
not constitute "slander per se" allowing teacher to sue for slander
based on accusation of criminal conduct without showing specific resulting
damages. Tourge v. City of Albany, 727 N.Y.S.2d 753 (A.D. 2001).
344:120 $9.9 million settlement in lawsuit for
false arrest/imprisonment and defamation brought by couple arrested in their
home without a warrant and charged with multiple child sexual molestation
offenses, only to have most of their accusers recant that accusation even
before a preliminary hearing. Valentin v. County of Los Angeles, No. C529739
(Los Angeles Super. Ct.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A13 (May 28,
2001).
342:85 Officer liable for $35,000 for civil
rights violation and false imprisonment of attorney arrested for alleged
interference with apprehension of two of his clients; lawsuit asserted officer
and prosecutor obtained arrest warrant based on false/misleading information;
prosecutor also liable for $65,000. Etoch v. Newton, Ark., No. CIV-96-105,
Phillips County Cir. Ct., Ark., Sept. 14, 2000, reported in ATLA Law Rptr.
(Feb. 2001).
339:37 Sheriff's actions in providing deputies to
accompany an employer who was firing two employees and asking them to leave the
premises did not constitute defamation under Pennsylvania law; mere presence of
deputies did not "communicate" anything that could damage the
employees' reputations. D'errico v. DeFazio, 763 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2000).
335:165 Prosecutor's statements to a newspaper
following murder suspect's acquittal could not be the basis for a defamation
lawsuit under California state law since they only expressed opinions protected
under the First Amendment and could not be interpreted as statements of facts;
even if defamatory, they could not be the basis for a federal civil rights
lawsuit; prosecutor was a state, not county, official for purposes of a
wrongful prosecution claim. Weiner v. San Diego County, #98-55752, 210 F.3d
1025 (9th Cir. 2000).
327:42 Sheriff's action of allegedly issuing
criminal summons to woman in retaliation for her political opposition to him
did not state a civil rights claim for malicious prosecution when she was not
arrested, detained, fingerprinted, or ultimately prosecuted; plaintiff's
liberty was not restricted in any way; summons and alleged defamatory remarks
to the press also did not constitute a violation of First Amendment rights when
no tangible adverse damage resulted from these acts. Matherne v. Larpenter, 54
F.Supp. 2d 684 (E.D. La. 1999).
314:21 Arrestee's loss of employment with private
employer after officers made post-acquittal negative statements to newspapers
did not convert ordinary defamation claim into federal civil rights claim;
arrestee was also a "limited-purpose public figure" in relation to
state law defamation claim, since he had previously "thrust" himself
into public controversy in the media over his qualifications to be a public
school teacher. Pendleton v. City of Haverhill, #97-2376, 156 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.
1998).
313:5 County officials could not sue special
investigator, state police or state for federal civil rights violation based on
investigator's alleged statements to reporters that they were
"targets" of grand jury; further proceedings ordered on state law
defamation claim. Long v. Durnil, 697 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. App. 1998).
301:5 Eye surgeon convicted of cultivating
marijuana could not bring civil rights lawsuit against officer who made
statement to the media concerning his arrest; alleged damage to his medical
practice did not turn defamation claim into constitutional issue; plaintiff
could not claim that pretrial publicity denied him a fair trial when he was
convicted and conviction was upheld on appeal. Higginbotham v. King, 63
Cal.Rptr.2d 114 (Cal. App. 1997).
311:164 Man arrested for bank robbery and later
vindicated could not sue, under federal civil rights law, for damages for
release of his name to the news media; police chief did not have a duty to
immediately investigate alibi evidence and properly delegated task of
continuing investigation to subordinates. Olinger v. Larson, 134 F.3d 1362 (8th
Cir. 1998).
{N/R} Federal appeals court orders retrial of $9
million verdict against 5 IRS employees accused by insurance company executive
of ruining his career by wrongfully disclosing to the media a plea agreement on
tax evasion charges in violation of explicit promise no publicity would be
issued about the plea. Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307 (5th Cir. 1997); $3.5
million settlement in case subsequently reached prior to retrial. The Natl. Law
Jour., p. A8 (May 4, 1998).
294:84 Police officer's report to state
university law enforcement that university employee had admitted using
marihuana was entitled to qualified privilege against defamation, and the
privilege could not be defeated, in the absence of a showing of "actual
malice" in making the statements Grier v. Johnson, 648 N.Y.S.2d 764 (A.D.
1996).
295:99 Police chief and city not liable for
defamation for allegedly providing information to reporter which resulted in
publication of article in which the victim of a car theft was named instead as
the person who stole the vehicle; article was promptly corrected and no damage
to plaintiff's reputation actually occurred Pfannenstiel v. Osborne Publishing
Co, 939 F.Supp. 1497 (D.Kan 1996).
{N/R} Sheriff could be vicariously liable for
sheriff detective's allegedly defamatory statement about felon's wife, possibly
implying wife's criminal conduct, but statements could not be the basis for a
federal civil rights claim absent any damage other than damage to reputation
Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me 1996).
277:5 Officer liable for $300,000 in damages to
truck driver fired by his employer after officer reported his suspicion that
driver had been involved in drug transaction while driving truck; truck had
been searched and no drugs had been found Schnupp v. Smith, 457 S.E.2d 42 (Va
1995).
282:84 Drug evidence from house excluded at
criminal trial because of illegality of search was properly introduced into
evidence in civil defamation lawsuit brought by resident against police chief
who allegedly told his employer he was a "drug dealer"; New Hampshire
Supreme Court declines to apply exclusionary rule in civil defamation suit
Simpkins v. Town of Bartlett, 661 A.2d 772 (NH 1995). [Cross-reference:
Procedural: Evidence]
273:134 Illinois state law gave detective, who
was department's spokesperson on the matter, absolute immunity from liability
for defamation in making statements to press concerning a criminal sexual
assault investigation Harris v. News-Sun, 646 N.E.2d 8 (Ill App. 1995).
Arresting officer was entitled to absolute
immunity, under Minnesota law, for making allegedly defamatory statements about
arrestee in arrest report, but would not have absolute, but only qualified,
immunity for making statements to the press to the extent that they differed
significantly from statements in the report Carradine v. State, 511 N.W.2d 733
(Minn. 1994).
Investigating officer's television interview
expressing skepticism about woman's report that she had been abducted and
sexually assaulted in a car could be the basis of a defamation lawsuit;
officer's statements, although "opinions," could reasonably be viewed
as implying undisclosed facts that woman had fabricated a story of abduction
and rape Weinstein v. Bullick, 827 F.Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa 1993).
Man wrongly identified as rape suspect in front
page newspaper photograph supplied to papers by police department to receive
$200,000 in settlement of defamation claim against city Hairston v. City of New
York, NY Sup Ct, reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. 15 (Nov
6, 1993).
Plaintiff who previously pled guilty to drug
offenses could not sue officer and informant for alleged violation of his civil
rights in conducting the investigation, nor recover, under federal civil rights
law, for alleged "slanderous" statements to his employer which resulted
in his termination Ludolph v. Wright, 791 F.Supp. 607 (N.D.W.Va. 1992).
Police officials and city were entitled to
qualified privilege in issuing press release which mistakenly stated that
youthful arrestee had been indicted by a grand jury; police captain's prompt
retraction of release and prompt apology helped negate any claim of malice in
issuing release Peterson v. City of Mitchell, 499 N.W.2d 911 (S.D.1993).
FBI's declarations that agent acted within the
scope of employment in contacting foreign individuals and allegedly making
statements accusing individual of being involved in organized crime were not
binding on federal court; dismissal of $11 million libel/slander suit
overturned Meridian International Logistics, Inc v. United States, 939 F.2d 740
(9th Cir. 1991).
Even if officer did falsely tell black man's
"white female friends" that he was a "pimp" or involved in
prostitution activities, this was no violation of his constitutional rights
Holley v. Schreibeck, 78 F.Supp. 283 (E.D. Pa 1991).
Deputy superintendent was absolutely privileged
in making statements to press concerning arrest of women for soliciting rides
and continuing crackdown on prostitutes Dolatowski v. Life Printing and
Publishing Co, Inc, 554 N.E.2d 692 (Ill App. 1990).
California police officers' written and oral
statements made during course of child abuse investigations are absolutely
privileged from defamation lawsuits Loeblich v. City of Davis, 262 Cal.Rptr.
397 (Cal App. 1989).
Being included on list of
"survivalists" released to news media by state police was not
sufficient cause for civil rights lawsuit Wade v. Goodwin, 843 F.2d 1150 (8th
Cir. 1988).
Person with history of drug and burglary
convictions spanning 25-years was "libel-proof" on statement he was
drug dealer Finklea v. Jacksonville Daily Progress, 742 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.App.
1987).
Officers had not libeled bail bondsman when there
was no evidence they had been involved in publication of newspaper article
concerning investigation Crain v. Lightner, 364 S.E.2d 778 (W.Va. 1987).
Filing of alleged false accident report defaming
victim did not violate constitutional rights Griggs v. Lexington Police
Department, 672 F.Supp. 36 (D.Mass 1987).
Sheriff's wife not considered a public figure
Sellers v. Stauffer Communications, Inc, 684 P.2d 450 (Kan App. 1984). Police
officer is considered public official requiring actual malice be shown for
defamation Smith v. Russell, 456 So.2d 462 (Fla 1984).
Damages awarded for humiliation and inability to
get job as security guard following publication of false arrest Dabbs v. State,
482 N.Y.S.2d 62 (A.D. 3 Dept 1984).
Police captain sues assistant police chief for
defamation and for malicious harassment Hoke v. Paul, 653 P.2d 1155 (Hawaii
1982).