Case Information
*2 Before: NYGAARD, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 26, 2005)
Peter M. Suwak, Esq. (Argued)
P. O. Box 1
Pete’s Surplus Building
Washington, PA 15301
Counsel for Appellant
Charles Kelly, Esq. (Argued)
Kristin L. Anders, Esq.
Sinclair, Kelly, Jackson, Reinhart & Hayden 501 Corporate Drive
Suite 200
Canonsburg, PA 15317
Counsel for Appellee
_____
OPINION OF THE COURT
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This case arises from Appellant James L. Bowley’s arrest for allegedly raping a minor while a minor himself, and the subsequent truthful publication of the fact of that arrest by Appellee Uniontown Herald Standard. As a result of the publication, Bowley sued the Herald Standard for a violation of the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the disclosure of juvenile law enforcement records and for the tort of invasion of privacy. We must now decide whether imposition of civil liability upon the Herald Standard for its actions with regard to Bowley would be consistent with the First Amendment. The District Court held that *4 it would not and granted the Herald Standard’s motion to dismiss. Because we agree that under these facts, the First Amendment provides the Herald Standard with a shield from liability, we will affirm.
I.
The Herald Standard published an article reporting that Bowley, a minor, had been arrested for allegedly raping a seven- year-old girl he was babysitting. In its entirety, the article stated:
City police arrested James Landon Bowley, 15, of Farmington Sunday on charges he allegedly raped a 7-year-old girl he was babysitting at her Uniontown home Friday evening.
According to police, the girl’s mother took her daughter to Uniontown Hospital after the girl complained of injury and bleeding Sunday afternoon. Bowley turned himself in to police Sunday at 5:45 p.m. and was charged with two counts of rape and one count each of indecent assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent exposure. Charges against Bowley were filed at the Connellsville Juvenile Detention Facility, where he is being held, police said.
(App. at 30a). According to Bowley, the Herald Standard received the information concerning his arrest from Uniontown Police Officer Fred Balsley.
*5 After seeing the report of his arrest in the newspaper, Bowley brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania against the Herald Standard, the City of Uniontown, the City of Uniontown Police Department, and Balsley. He alleged that the release of the fact and details of his arrest to the Herald Standard, and the subsequent publication of that information by the Herald Standard, violated his rights under both state and federal law. Against the Herald Standard, Bowley brought claims for breach of confidentiality in violation of 42 P A . C ONS . S TAT . § 6308, which generally prohibits the disclosure of juvenile law enforcement records, and for the tort of invasion of privacy. Against all other Defendants, Bowley brought these state- law claims in addition to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his civil rights.
Because there was a federal claim, Defendants removed the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Herald Standard then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The District Court, relying on the Report and Recommendation from *6 the Magistrate Judge, granted that motion. Because Bowley has since settled with the remaining Defendants and stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of his claims against them, the District Court’s grant of the motion to dismiss is a final order, which we have jurisdiction to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
We exercise plenary review over the grant of a motion to
dismiss.
Lorenz v. CSX Corp
.,
III.
As explained, Bowley has stated two claims against the Herald Standard, each stemming from the publication of information concerning his arrest. He first claims a breach of confidentiality in violation of 42 P A . C ONS S . TAT . § 6308. He *7 also claims a tortious invasion of his privacy. The Herald Standard argues that the breach of confidentiality claim is not cognizable under Pennsylvania law and that Bowley cannot establish each element of the invasion of privacy claim. It argues in addition, that the First Amendment shields it from civil liability for publishing the article, which contained truthful information received from the police. We agree with the Herald Standard that the First Amendment shields it from liability on these facts.
There no doubt exists a tension between the First Amendment right to a free press and an individual’s statutory and common law right to privacy, complicated here because the individual in question is a juvenile. It is a tension the Supreme Court has had several occasions to address. See Florida Star v. public except if the child is 14 or more years of age at the time of the alleged conduct and if any of the following apply:
(i) The child has been adjudicated delinquent by a court . . . [or]
(ii) A petition alleging delinquency has been filed by a law enforcement agency . . . For that reason we need resolve the questions of state law
before us. In particular, we need not decide whether 42 P A . C ONS .
S TAT . § 6308 creates a cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
*8
B.J.F.
,
Although the truthfulness of the article is not in dispute, the parties disagree as to whether other aspects of this test have been satisfied. They disagree as to whether the Herald Standard lawfully obtained information concerning Bowley’s arrest. They disagree as to whether Bowley’s arrest is a matter of public significance. And they disagree, finally, as to whether protecting the anonymity of an arrested juvenile is a need of the “highest order.” We address each of these disputes in turn.
A.
Bowley contends that absent discovery, it is unclear whether the Herald Standard lawfully obtained the information in the article. Thus, he asserts, the case should be remanded. In *10 light of the allegations in the Complaint, however, Bowley can prove no set of facts establishing that the Herald Standard obtained the information unlawfully.
According to the Complaint, Officer Balsley informed the
Herald Standard of Bowley’s arrest. (App. at 13a). Although
Balsley violated Pennsylvania law prohibiting the release of
juvenile arrest records by doing so,
see
42 P A . C ONS . S TAT . §
6308, his unlawful release of the information does not make
receipt of that information by the Herald Standard unlawful.
Section 6308 prohibits only the
disclosure
of juvenile law
enforcement information, not the
receipt
of such information.
See id
. (“The contents of law enforcement records and files
concerning a child shall not be
disclosed
to the public. . . .”)
(emphasis added);
cf. Florida Star
,
Moreover, the Supreme Court held in
Florida Star
that
*11
failure by the police to comply with a Florida statute prohibiting
the release of a rape victim’s name did not render unlawful a
newspaper’s resultant receipt of the protected information. 491
U.S. at 536. The Court explained, “[n]or does the fact that the
Department apparently failed to fulfill its obligation under . . .
[the non-disclosure statute] make the newspaper’s ensuing
receipt of this information unlawful.”
Id.
The Court reiterated
this sentiment in
Bartnicki v. Vopper
,
B.
The fact of Bowley’s arrest is a matter of public concern.
*12
In
Florida Star,
the Supreme Court held that the commission and
investigation of violent crimes—in that case like in this one,
rape—are matters of “paramount public import.”
invasion of privacy fails. Although the tort of invasion of privacy
is actually four distinct torts, only one is presently at issue: publicity
given to private life. Under Pennsylvania law, the elements of this tort
are: 1) giving publicity; 2) to private facts; 3) of a kind highly offensive
to a reasonable person; and 4)
which are not of legitimate concern to the
public. Jenkins v. Bolla
,
age of the accused.
C.
Because the information published by the Herald Standard was truthful, lawfully obtained, and concerning a matter of public significance, the First Amendment shields the Herald Standard from civil liability unless the imposition of liability is narrowly tailored to serve an interest of the highest order. Even if, as Bowley asserts, protecting the anonymity of an arrested juvenile is an interest of the highest order, under the facts of this case, we hold that subjecting the Herald Standard to civil liability is not the most narrowly tailored means of serving that interest.
The Supreme Court has held that when the government
itself inappropriately releases otherwise-confidential information
“the imposition of damages against the press for its subsequent
publication can hardly be said to be a narrowly tailored means of
safeguarding anonymity.”
Florida Star
,
D.
A newspaper may not be held liable for its publication of lawfully obtained, truthful information on a matter of public significance unless imposing liability would be the most narrowly tailored means of serving a state interest of the highest order. Id . at 541. The information contained in the article published by the Herald Standard was truthful, lawfully obtained, and concerned a matter of public significance. We need not decide whether protecting the anonymity of juvenile *15 offenders is a state interest of the highest order, because when the government is ultimately responsible for the disclosure of information, imposing civil liability upon a newspaper for the subsequent publication of that information is not the most narrowly tailored means of serving any purported interest. Bowley, therefore, cannot seek civil damages against the Herald Standard consistent with the First Amendment. He must instead rest his hopes for restitution “upon the willingness of the government to compensate victims for their loss of privacy” stemming from the government’s inappropriate release of confidential information. Id . at 538.
IV.
Bowley cannot maintain his action against the Herald Standard consistent with the First Amendment. We will affirm the District Court’s grant of the Herald Standard’s motion to dismiss.
Notes
[1] Although unclear from the record, it does not appear that Bowley was actually prosecuted.
[2] At the time the case was filed, Bowley, born on November 17, 1985, was a minor. Thus, he brought the case through James C. Bowley, his father and guardian ad litem .
[3] Section 6308 of Pennsylvania’s Judicial Code provides in relevant part: The contents of law enforcement records and files concerning a child shall not be disclosed to the
[5] For the purposes of the First Amendment, whether the Herald Standard’s subsequent disclosure of the information violated section 6308 is irrelevant to the question of whether the newspaper lawfully obtained the information it disclosed.
[6] We recognize, however, that there might be cases where the details of the crime, as opposed to its mere occurrence, would not necessarily be of public concern. See e.g., Foretich v. Lifetime Cable , 777 F. Supp. 47, 50 (D.D.C. 1991) (“The Court acknowledges that the sexual abuse of children is an issue worthy of public attention, but it does not believe as a matter of law, that
[8] The anonymity to be protected in that case was that of a rape victim. However, the same rationale applies with equal force to the anonymity of the alleged offender.