Young v. Wilham
34,379
| N.M. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- David Young was a civilian APD employee and a commissioned reserve officer who performed both technical (paid) and undercover/detective (unpaid reserve) work; his time sheets did not separately document deductions for reserve duty.
- Reporter Todd Wilham obtained Young’s time sheets, payroll and court/arrest records via public records requests and concluded Young had been paid overtime while performing reserve duties, including arrests.
- The Albuquerque Journal ran a series of articles (one calling Young a “wannabe cop”) reporting that Young had collected overtime for police-related work and noting a $175,000 settlement tied to arrests he made; early articles included a $12,000 overtime figure derived from Wilham’s spreadsheet.
- Young sued for defamation and false light; the district court dismissed claims based on the “wannabe cop” label and later granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining claims after finding Young was a public official and produced no evidence of actual malice.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Young was a public official for New York Times Co. purposes, the “wannabe cop” characterization was nonactionable opinion based on disclosed facts, and Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of actual malice.
Issues
| Issue | Young's Argument | Journal/Wilham's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Young is a “public official” requiring proof of actual malice | Young: As a reserve officer he lacked status/authority of a public official | Defs: Young acted with police authority (badge, arrests, carried gun); statements concerned his reserve conduct | Held: Young is a public official for published statements about his reserve-officer conduct; actual malice standard applies |
| Whether “wannabe cop” is defamatory/false light | Young: Phrase could be factual or imply undisclosed defamatory facts | Defs: Term is opinion/hyperbole and articles disclosed the factual basis (reserve status, arrests, laws) | Held: “Wannabe cop” is nonactionable opinion; dismissal under Rule 1-012(B)(6) proper |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on overtime/false statements (actual malice) | Young: Records were ambiguous; $12,000 figure and defendants’ state of mind create triable issues | Defs: Records, arrest reports, supervisor testimony and Young’s admissions show at least appearance he was paid overtime while performing reserve duties; they lacked knowledge of falsity | Held: Defs made a prima facie showing; Young produced no evidence of actual malice or cumulative circumstantial proof to create a genuine dispute; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether New Mexico Constitution affords greater protection to Young than federal law | Young: State constitution should allow greater recovery/restrictions on speech | Defs: Federal First Amendment and controlling precedent limit libel recovery by public officials | Held: No departure from federal New York Times standard; state constitutional argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual malice standard for public officials)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (distinguishes public-official protections and private-figure standards)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (opinions are protected unless implying undisclosed defamatory facts)
- Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (First Amendment limits on false-light claims)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (examples of conduct supporting findings of actual malice)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (material falsity/substantial truth doctrine)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (independent appellate review required in actual-malice cases)
- Gray v. Udevitz, 656 F.2d 588 (10th Cir.) (patrol officer as public official due to governmental character of duties)
- Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing opinions based on disclosed facts from those implying undisclosed facts)