Doe v. Star Telegram, Inc.
864 S.W.2d 790
Tex. App.
1993
Check Treatment

*2 published about HICKS, JJ., law, true, Before FARRIS and and as a matter pellant was HOPKINS, J., Retired, Sitting By liability publication no there can be information;1 of truthful Assignment. falsity is not an privacy by charge of invasion of 1. Truth is not defense then state officials not constitu- all the information icanee As a matter of concerning appel- tionally punish publication of the informa- published by appellees tion, legitimate pub- further a state inter- lant constituted matters absent a need to accordingly, cannot form order. lic est of the liability privacy; the basis of for invasion at *3 (3) published in this principle, applying In the Court Appel- case was truthful information which (1) factors: whether the considered three obtained, therefore, lawfully and as a lee information; newspaper lawfully obtained form the matter of the articles cannot (2) paper imposing liability on any liability appellant; to and basis of further a state interest of serves a need to (4) Appellees cannot be liable on (3) order; “timidity and and allegedly ry negligence because the self-censorship” result from allow- which constitutionally “negligent” acts were publishing punished ing the media to be privileged.2 533-34, information. truthful granted their motion The trial court at 2609-10. 109 S.Ct. theory it en upon not state which but did disposition depends of this case Thus, judgment. prevail appeal, to on tered a fact exists upon whether issue argument independent each Doe must show newspaper obtained the information how the support to advanced in the motion fails to and on Doe. Attached judgment. City Coppell v. General See Tong’s motion is 448, Corp., 763 S.W.2d 451 Homes police report affidavit in which she claims the denied). 1988, App. writ — Dallas (1) to her viewed was made available she (1) Theory advances a defense that is not Depart personnel of the Fort Worth Police privacy claim against an invasion of available (2) ment, address of contained the business (4) theory concerns a claim Doe aban- and (3) offense, made Doe and the location of the doned; therefore, theories do not these two at Doe’s offense occurred it clear that the judgment. wheth- support the To determine (4) home, age, make and and disclosed Doe’s (2) (3) support the er theories and car, and residence her model of in The principles enumerated we find the addresses, offense. and the details of the B.J.F., 491 U.S. 109 Florida Star v. the affidavit of Ser- response, In Doe filed (1989) 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 instruc- S.Ct. (1) in which he states geant C.D. Timmons4 tive, though involved a statu- even that ease any identifying informa- not he did per of action.3 tory negligence se cause (2) repeatedly he Doe to tion about in- controlling because it

Florida Star procedures against told that was reporting a between truthful volved conflict release department practices of the and interests, state-protected privacy (3) information, his to the best of presented here. Id. act issue practices procedures and knowledge, these Supreme by himself and the always followed in Smith v. plied it articulated department, without other members Co., Publishing Daily Mail 443 U.S. exception. (1979): 2667, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 evidence, conclude we reviewing this lawfully truthful After obtains a [I]f a raises Timmons’ affidavit signif- Sergeant C.D. about a matter of information person a private life was one that reasonable of action. National Bank element of this cause id., U.S. at Corp., F.Supp. highly 539-40 See Shaklee offensive." find added). (W.D.Tex.1980). (emphasis In the at 2612 109 S.Ct. inconsequential distinction current negligence theories as a abandoned her 2. Doe element has parties concede this liability. separate basis for been established. in- between common-law 3. The distinction gave allegedly who is the officer 4. C.D. Timmons negligence per privacy se is vasion findings "case-by-case tip the Doe assault. require a the latter does not person's of a fact about including Ross’s. Id. rapes, Star-Telegram details of several to whether the fact issue as “Marla,” true first her lawfully. Ross was identified information Tong obtained the house, name, at the photograph theory sup- find does not rape, was shown. time of the port the trial court’s identified The station said it Likewise, theory support does not home, rape because details of the regardless of whether judgment because suspect identify rape named Ross could not article contain- is a fact issue about the there raped. line-up Id. Fossum in a after she it is ing matters of Later, of two Fossum was convicted at 271. protected if the information was secured documentary sought as to unlawfully. Because a fact issue exists the Ross how details from show (2). (3), theory theory as to a fact issue exists convicted of were iden- Fossum was *4 precluded on all four Since tical, else com- thereby suggesting someone ries, of error. we sustain 271-72. both mitted judgment is reversed and news- court found the information was remanded for trial. the case is rapes worthy because the details of the two and the details of the Ross were so similar Justice, HICKS, concurring. showing rape relevant in Fossum were majority I concur with the as to the While wrongly Id. at 273. have been convicted. result, analysis. I I offer a different would pointed out that because The court further question that a fact would hold identity private person’s is not itself a rape and informa- whether the details of the fact, technically embarrassing the issue is identifying legitimate public were of identity connected to whether the victim’s concern. legitimate rape is a matter of details of In some eases the issue “newsworthi- noting this issue concern. at 274. While question court but ness” is a of law for the impression in to be one of first jury. question of fact for the sometimes a identity credi- Ross’s lent needed court found Co., 665 F.2d Gilbert v. Medical Economics story and to bility persuasive force to the Cir.1981). (10th Liability public knowledge of of the details show the station’s private precluded if facts reasons, the court her attack. Id. For these “objective [could not] and reasonable minds identity in connection with found Ross’s finding question the article in to be differ those details to also be of entirety.” privileged in its See id. There- concern. Id. at 275. fore, objective if could and reasonable minds the details Unlike the facts issue, on the it is decided as a not differ identifying details were rape matter of law. story; rath- “uniquely to the but crucial” To whether a fact determine er, goes public concern claimed case, I need to ists in this think we first “general sociological issue”—that afflu- “private alleging ascertain what facts” Doe is crime. There- people also victims of ent are improperly Doe contends disclosed. fore, objective and reason- I hold that rape fact a occurred is a matter of that the finding the details could differ able minds public but that the details identifying Doe and information identity were not. The Fifth and of legitimate concern. were of very issue Ross v. Circuit addressed reasons, I concur For the above Inc., Communications, 870 F.2d Midwest majority. opinion of the Cir.1989).1 (5th a docu- a television station aired Ross guilt of a man con- mentary questioning the program disclosed the rape.

victed finding differ in binding minds could Although whether reasonable I is not realize Ross court, entirety. apply and I find its privileged does Texas law in its be the article to determining reasoning language helpful in