Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster Cty. Crime Stoppers
294 Neb. 715
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In May 2013, Lincoln Police obtained ATM surveillance video (without time/transaction stamp) from a bank showing a woman withdrawing cash; officers could not independently identify the person in the footage.
- LPD’s audio/video technician captured stills; Crime Stoppers (City-owned website operated by LPD) posted the images with text accusing the subject of using a stolen credit card; the same images/claim were shared on Facebook and used in a local TV segment.
- Tips led officers to interview Shayla Funk, who admitted she was the person in the video but denied any wrongdoing; she was later cited, then charges were not filed after the bank produced records showing a legitimate transaction.
- Funk sued Crime Stoppers and the City for defamation and false light; a jury awarded $75,000 against Crime Stoppers; the district court found the City liable and awarded a total of $259,217.60 plus ordered retractions.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether a qualified (conditional) privilege protected the City’s publications, (2) applicability of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 (retraction statute) limiting damages, (3) whether the Facebook/link post contributed to liability/damages, (4) damages sufficiency, and (5) viability of the false light claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether qualified privilege shields the City’s publications | Funk: officer lacked reasonable grounds and failed to verify video; privilege does not apply | City: officer honestly believed bank-provided footage showed the suspect; privilege applies | Court: privilege does not apply — officer relied entirely on unverified bank representations and lacked reasonable/probable grounds |
| Whether § 25-840.01 (failure-to-request-retraction limit) barred general damages | Funk: City waived the statutory limitation by not pleading failure-to-request-retraction as an affirmative defense | City: Funk failed to request retraction within 20 days, limiting recovery to special damages unless actual malice shown | Court: City failed to plead the statutory defense; it is an affirmative defense and therefore Funk entitled to general damages |
| Whether the Facebook/link post was defamatory and relevant to damages | Funk: Facebook link increased dissemination and harm; court may consider it | City: Facebook photo showed only torso and was not identifiable; thus not defamatory | Court: Regardless whether Facebook post alone was defamatory, linking increased reach of defamatory web post; court permissibly considered it in damages |
| Whether equitable relief (retraction) and damages award were proper | Funk sought relief generally and claimed reputational/mental harm | City: injunction/retraction were not pleaded; monetary award speculative | Court: Monetary damages affirmed as supported by evidence; equitable relief (retraction injunction) vacated because plaintiff’s complaint was an action at law and did not properly seek equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott Fetzer Co. v. Williamson, 101 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 1996) (qualified privilege can be lost where defendant fails to investigate and relies solely on unverified information)
- Nebraska Pub. Emp. v. City of Omaha, 244 Neb. 328 (Neb. 1993) (discussing pleading requirements and affirmative defenses)
- Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (Neb. 2012) (standard of review for tort claims under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act)
- McCune v. Neitzel, 235 Neb. 754 (Neb. 1990) (types of recoverable defamation damages)
- Moats v. Republican Party of Neb., 281 Neb. 411 (Neb. 2010) (false light claims must allege nondefamatory statements to stand separately from defamation)