To win a defamation lawsuit in Indiana, a plaintiff must prove four key elements: a false and defamatory statement of fact was made, it was published (communicated) to a third party, the defendant acted with negligence or malice, and it caused material harm or damages to the plaintiff’s reputation.
false statement: you're obviously on meth
defamation per quod: it's an accusation of unlawful drug use and drugged driving.
communicated: to the other officer
negligence or malice where malice equals reckless disregard for the truth.
when confronted, did not retract.
9 months later, still has not retracted.
his statement was an expression not just by the officer but by the city of beech grove. respondiat superior.
9 month s later, the city has still not retracted.
the failure to retract is evidence of reckless disregard for the truth.
material harm: the other officer then participated in seizing my van and contents without due process, violating my civil rights. and if the case is filed and becomes public, the damage will spread.
a reasonable jury could conclude that my reputation was harmed.
at the time of the stop, i was a private citizen. i am somewhat of a public citizen, gertz, etc. heightened standard of proof when publc figure or matter of public concern. while we can agree meth use is a matter of public concern
Indiana defamation law defines defamation as “a statement that ‘tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.’” Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido’s, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446, 451 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 686 (Ind. 1997).
In a subsequent Indiana case, defamation was similarly stated as “that which tends to injure or to diminish esteem, respect, goodwill, or confidence in the plaintiff, or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff.” Ratcliff v. Barnes, 750 N.E.2d 433, 436 (Ind. App. 2001), Haegert v. McMullan, 953 N.E.2d 1223, 1230 (Ind. App. 2011) (quoting McQueen v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Corp., 711 N.E.2d 62, 65 (Ind. App. 1999).
Police officers are considered public officials and generally hold a qualified privilege, protecting them from libel/slander suits for on-duty statements made in good faith. This immunity is lost if statements are made with actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—or improper purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment