Former local attorney Allan Dollison, cited this code California Government Code 6254(f)(2)(A) in a comment on another blog post .
That post was EPD clarifying they did not authorize the release of the police report Eureka City Manager Greg Sparks released to media yesterday regarding the Blue Heron.
Still no word from Eureka City Manager Sparks or Eureka City Attorney about why the City of Eureka chose to release the police report.
Only one media outlet, Lost Coast Outpost, released that police report to the public. It is still included in their updated post. The rest only printed the press release.
Anyone covering crime or courts is familiar with the law; if not the above code.
With all the speculation online from non attorneys about whether Floyd Squires can sue the City of Eureka for libel; they ignored this headline.
There is no evidence or criminal history that Kattie Yocum has been arrested for prostitution. People criticizing Mr. Sparks on publishing third party hearsay should also apply that standard to this headline.
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2017/sep/1/city-eureka-says-blue-heron-burned-because-squires/
To prove libel, there is specific criteria. Whether Floyd Squires or Kattie Yocum have a case is not going to be decided in the opinion section, but a court applying law.
Thanks for the credits John. All criminal lawyers are very familiar with that section because, and in particular with Eureka, it happens to be stamped on every police report. Police reports by their very nature must be highly sensitive documents that only very few people see. In almost every case, the trial judge almost never sees the police report. Of course neither do the jurors. The City of Eureka just made it demonstrably harder to prosecute the accused arsonist and opened themselves up to a massive lawsuit by a Mr. Squires. His attorney is a very personal friend and has had tremendous success in representing Mr. Squires. CPT Stephens was absolutely correct in distancing himself from this disaster.
ReplyDeleteAllan,from personal experience, you have been correct 100% with your comments on the outcome of several cases and appeals.
DeleteThat's right...Allen is a very smart man and knows what's right is right and wrong is wrong..
ReplyDeleteDamn auto spell. I meant Allan not Allen.
ReplyDeletehttp://kymkemp.com/2017/09/01/fire-at-blue-heron-allegedly-started-by-the-arson-suspect-because-of-mr-squires-failed-to-pay-for-sexual-services
ReplyDeleteThe two biggest hurdles in a libel suit are: protected/privileged speech and actual malice. With actual malice, you have to prove intent *and* willful negligence. You know the statement you are making is false or in reckless disregard of the truth because you can't corroborate the statement's credibility.
A classic tactic to cover yourself on protected/privileged speech is to leak damaging speech to a news outlet and then claim fair reporting privilege when you spread the accusation.
Greg Sparks tossed the scurrilous accusation out there as red meat, thinking that he's protected because it came from a police report and any remarks said to police are considered protected speech. No different than when a plaintiff sues a defendant in court and puts in outrageous claims in order to get someone in media to republish the accusations under the guise of the fair reporting privilege.
My hunch is that Sparks and Eureka are *probably* protected by anti-SLAPP law in this case but it's not a road I would want to go down defending as an attorney in court. If Floyd Squires can prove it's unprotected/unprivileged speech and can get past the actual malice/willful negligence standards, he would still have to disprove a negative. It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning.
What an unnecessary mess created here by Greg Sparks.
Monster, checked with a local attorney regarding your comment and this is the response."Monster is not accurate,as to privilege. He is accurate as to malice but that only applies to the press. It does NOT apply to the city manager and therefore does not protect the city and city manager from being sued."
DeleteThat's the flipside of the anti-SLAPP motion to strike, however -- even if the speech is deemed unprivileged, as long as the city can show it was a comment regarding something of public interest then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of winning. Hence the "when did you stop beating your wife?" scenario where it's impossible to disprove a negative so broad.
DeleteI don't like what Greg Sparks did. It's incredibly reckless. Recklessness is substantial and unjustifiable risk. The bigger question I want to know is whether or not Cyndy Day-Wilson approved his statement. If she did, the city should terminate her employment.
It will be a PLEASURE to see Sparks, LOCO and Times-Standard sued in a court of LAW!
ReplyDeleteThis feedback was sent to me privately but has good points:
ReplyDelete"I like Allan but he doesnt understand 6254. This,is a public records act EXCEPTION. This means the public can't demand and acquire this,report. The agency CAN disclose it if they choose. They did. They gave it to the City manager, who then chose to disclose it, stupidly. Now they can get sued for the publication of libelous information.
The public may claim waiver and get more of the investigative reports due to this voluntary disclosure."
The problem with that theory is that the agency is the holder of the privilege. So the only authorized holder and waiver of the privilege is the agency that created the document. That is not the City Manager. That is the City of Eureka Police Department. The City Manager without the authority of EPD went ahead and released the report. We know it was without the authority of the police department as a Captain, #2 ranking officer in the department said we did not do this. It is like that great line from Apocalypse Now, "He received no official approval. He just thought it up and did it." The City has now complicated the prosecution and at a minimum has spoiled the jury pool. This will now be heavily litigated in Court.
ReplyDeleteNope....
Delete1. Epd waived the privilege by disclosing to the city manager....
Or
2. The city manager was,allowed to see it due to his position...if so then he waived it.
It's either ine or the other.
In any event he puvlished it and he and the city are likely in a legal pickle.