Lovejoy v. Linehan
161 N.H. 483
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Lovejoy sued Linehan, Peirce, Dandurant, and Rockingham County for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts related to an annulled conviction.
- October 27, 2008 Portsmouth Herald article stated Lovejoy was involved in a 1989 simple assault conviction that was annulled and thrown out of court.
- Plaintiff claimed Linehan and Peirce prepared documents about the annulled conviction and supplied them to Dandurant for publication.
- Trial court dismissed Count II for failure to plead sufficient facts; appeal upheld dismissal without prejudice to amend in the trial court.
- Court reviewed whether the annulled conviction is a private fact not subject to public disclosure, under RSA 651:5 and common-law privacy torts.
- Court held the annulled conviction is a matter of legitimate public concern given Lovejoy’s candidacy for sheriff and public office.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an annulled conviction a private fact? | Lovejoy argues annulment creates privacy. | Linehan/Peirce argue statute does not create civil privacy right. | Annulled conviction is a matter of legitimate public concern. |
| Does RSA 651:5 create a private civil remedy for annulled records? | Statute creates privacy protections for annulled records. | Statute imposes criminal penalties but provides no private civil remedy. | Statute does not provide a private civil remedy. |
| Does candidacy for public office render private facts publicly relevant? | Annullment should shield private information from publicity. | Candidate’s public role reduces privacy expectation; public interest outweighs privacy. | Annulled record is of legitimate public concern; public interest outweighs privacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107 (1964) (four torts of invasion of privacy; focus on public disclosure.)
- Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375 (2008) (public interest in candidates; diminished privacy for office seekers.)
- Summe v. Kenton County Clerk's Office, 626 F.Supp.2d 680 (E.D. Ky. 2009) (candidates’ qualifications for public office are legitimate public concerns.)
- Santillo v. Reedel, 430 Pa.Super. 290 (1993) (relevance of alleged misconduct to public office qualifications.)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (distinction between FOIA privacy and tort privacy; facts differ for public office.)