In the case of Nice v. Akron, 2023-Ohio-2230, an appellate court held that (1) the replacement police chief had absolute privilege against civil liability for statements made in the course of reporting criminal activity; (2) the public official had statutory immunity regarding comments made at a press conference; and (3) the public official was not liable for abuse of process when referring a criminal investigation to a special prosecutor when the public official was not involved in the investigation.
In this case, the police chief argued that (1) the synopsis written by the replacement chief included statements that were outside the scope of the criminal investigation; (2) the public official acted maliciously when stating in a press release that the police chief used racist language when the public official had reason to question the validity of the accusation and failed to investigate the allegation further; and (3) the public official proceeded in the criminal investigation for an ulterior purpose. In response, the replacement police chief argued that all statements made during a criminal investigation have absolute privilege. In response, the public official argued that (1) the public official did not make any specific allegations regarding the police chief and (2) the public official did not participate in the investigation, but instead referred the matter for investigation. The appellate court agreed with the replacement police chief and the public official.
In support of its decision in favor of the replacement police chief, the appellate court explained that the replacement police chief provided the information that was requested within the course of a criminal investigation, which means that the synopsis had absolute privilege.
In support of its decision in favor of the public official, the appellate court explained that the public official did not reveal the nature or specific words that the police chief allegedly said, but generally referred to derogatory remarks made by the police chief. The appellate court further explained that an ulterior motive is irrelevant for an abuse of process claim, so long as the desired result is within the court’s power to order.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.