The Arkansas Supreme Court held last week in a unanimous decision that the fair report privilege protected reporters from The Courier newspaper who had reported allegations about a rape investigation based on the contents of a police report.
The decision arose out of a defamation claim against the paper made by Kevin Whiteside, who was named in the police report of a rape investigation in December 2006. The report said that a witness at a party hosted by Whiteside saw Whiteside with the alleged rape victim. In January 2007, The Courier published a story about the allegations based on the police report. The story was quite high-profile, since in 2005 Whiteside and his friend, also named by the witness, had found the dead body of a local beauty queen. In fact, at the time of the alleged rape the friend was free on bond awaiting trial on charges relating to the woman's death.
Whiteside claimed in his lawsuit, however, that after the police report was taken, but before the story was published, the witness recanted her story. While the paper published a "clarification" of this fact, Whiteside said in his complaint that it was insufficient. The trial court granted the newspaper's motion for summary judgment and subsequently denied Whiteside's motion for new trial and for relief from judgment.
On appeal, Whiteside claimed that the witness statements in the first police report should not have been released and should not be considered a report of an "official action or proceeding" under Section 611 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. While the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that the witness statement should not have been made available to the reporters according to police policy, the court said that the report was indeed covered under Section 611 and that the paper had done nothing improper in obtaining it.
Whiteside argued, however, that the privilege should not apply here because the paper knew, or should have known, that it was not supposed to be able to see the witness statements. Citing The Florida Star v. B.J.F., the court rejected that argument, holding:
It seems clear that an inadvertent release of information is not analogous to an involuntary release or an illegal gain of information. As discussed, the record is devoid of any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Newspaper in obtaining the information. It was not incumbent upon the Newspaper to determine what information could or could not be published after its release by the police.
Finally, Whiteside asserted on appeal that the description of the contents of the police report was not substantially accurate. Specifically, Whiteside said that the story was misleading because it interspersed comments in the report from the police officer and comments from the witness in unclear ways. The court said that the organization of the story may have been confusing, but it was essentially "an accurate and complete or a fair abridgment of the occurrence reported."
For general information on the fair report privilege, click here. For a previous report we have published on the privilege, click here.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- Education
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Court Dockets
- Access to Search Warrants
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services