63 F. Supp. 3d 732
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Four rank-and-file Saginaw police officers removed items from a forfeited house on June 20, 2012 after their supervisor told them to gather items of value and that remaining items would be thrown out; officers believed they had implied permission to take items.
- The City initiated internal and Michigan State Police investigations; prosecutors declined criminal charges but the officers received five-day unpaid suspensions for mishandling forfeited property.
- Channel 5 (Meredith Corp.) broadcast reports in September 2012 stating the officers were "accused of stealing items during a raid," and one broadcast incorrectly stated they were "accused of stealing drugs during a raid."
- Channel 5 later issued on-air clarifications apologizing and expressly retracting the "stealing drugs" allegation and noting there was no raid at the time items were taken.
- Plaintiffs sued for defamation. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the broadcasts were substantially true and, because plaintiffs are public officials, plaintiffs cannot show actual malice.
- The court granted summary judgment for Defendant as to statements that plaintiffs were "accused of stealing during a raid" (substantially true), but denied summary judgment as to the statement that they were "accused of stealing drugs during a raid" (false and triable on actual malice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether broadcasts that officers were "accused of stealing during a raid" are false/defamatory | Officers: phrase is inaccurate (no raid, no criminal charges); meaning is defamatory | Channel 5: gist is that officers were accused of stealing while on duty; minor inaccuracies are protected by substantial truth | Held: Statement substantially true; summary judgment for Defendant granted |
| Whether broadcast that officers were "accused of stealing drugs during a raid" is false | Officers: categorical denial—never investigated for stealing drugs; materially false | Channel 5: relied on press releases/archives; mistake/non-actionable error | Held: Statement is false; plaintiffs made prima facie showing of falsity; summary judgment denied |
| Whether plaintiffs are public officials (standard for fault) | Officers: rank-and-file, no policymaking authority; should be private parties | Channel 5: officers are public officials; must prove actual malice | Held: Officers are public officials for NYT/Sullivan purposes; plaintiffs must prove actual malice |
| Whether Channel 5 acted with actual malice regarding the "stealing drugs" line | Officers: producer fabricated or recklessly published the line; retractions aside, evidence supports actual malice by clear and convincing evidence | Channel 5: no evidence of serious doubts; inadvertent error | Held: Genuine dispute exists: producer admitted the line was inaccurate and could not identify its source; a reasonable jury could find fabrication/reckless disregard; summary judgment denied on actual malice |
Key Cases Cited
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (substantial-truth doctrine tolerates minor inaccuracies)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (defamatory statements must be provable as false)
- Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek Michigan, 440 Mich. 238 (1992) (minor inaccuracies and popular-word usage do not defeat substantial truth defense)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (public officials must show actual malice)
- Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966) (test for who qualifies as a public official)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (fabrication is evidence of actual malice; good-faith assertions are not dispositive)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence under the plaintiff's evidentiary burden)