Hilderbrand v. Washington County Commissioners, 33 A.3d 425

Hilderbrand, a law enforcement officer assigned to the MDEA, sued the Washington County Commissioners and Sheriff Smith for slander per se, invasion of privacy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Smith terminated Washington County’s affiliation with the MDEA after viewing a home video featuring Hilderbrand engaging in intoxicated, crass conduct and identifying himself as a police officer.
The video shows Hilderbrand with a police badge, handling a gun, and making brief statements about his profession during the scene, and a later segment depicts additional misconduct.
Smith publicly announced the decision to end cooperation with the MDEA, criticized Hilderbrand’s conduct, and suggested possible child endangerment concerns.
Hilderbrand contends the statements were defamatory and made for political gain, while Smith contends immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) applies.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith and the Commissioners, concluding discretionary function immunity barred the claims; the appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s public statements are protected by discretionary function immunity.	Hilderbrand argues immunity does not apply to defamatory public statements.	Smith argues discretionary function immunity applies to official policy decisions and explanations.	Yes; statements within Smith’s official duties are immunized.
Whether four Darling factors support immunity for Smith’s challenged actions.	Hilderbrand contends the factors do not favor immunity given alleged misconduct.	Smith asserts all four factors weigh in favor of immunity.	Yes; all four factors weigh in favor of immunity.
Whether Smith’s authority to publicize policy decisions is sufficiently within his official role to sustain immunity.	Hilderbrand claims the public explanations were outside his official authority.	Smith’s elected-official role and broad duties encompass public explanations of policy changes.	Yes; immunity extends given his official capacity and responsibilities.
Whether the Commissioners can be held vicariously liable for Smith's statements.	Hilderbrand asserts vicarious liability for Smith’s actions.	Smith’s statements are not attributable to the Commissioners since Smith is not their employee.	Affirmed; Commissioners not liable.

Tolliver v. Dep’t of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008) (immunity for discretionary governmental decisions and policy-level actions)
Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421 (Me. 1987) (foundation for discretionary function immunity and policy-based analysis)
Selby v. Cumberland Cnty., 2002 ME 80 (Me. 2002) (scope considerations for official capacity and immunity)
Grossman v. Richards, 1999 ME 9 (Me. 1999) (broad interpretation of elected-official authority and immunity)
Morgan v. Kooistra, 2008 ME 26 (Me. 2008) (immunity considerations for public statements by government actors)
Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 (Me. 2003) (integration of policy decisions with official acts in immunity analysis)
Jorgensen v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ME 42 (Me. 2009) (essential link between governmental objective and means used)
Roberts v. State, 1999 ME 89 (Me. 1999) (essential to supervisory roles in governmental programs)