Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
783 P.2d 781, 162 Ariz. 335 (1989)
Rule of Law:
Arizona recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy, as defined by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, as a cause of action distinct from defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, public officials cannot maintain a false light action for publications that relate to the performance of their official duties.
Facts:
- In the spring and summer of 1985, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. published over fifty articles, editorials, and columns concerning Maricopa County Sheriff Richard G. Godbehere and other law enforcement employees.
- The publications asserted that Godbehere and his staff engaged in illegal activities, including staging narcotics arrests to generate publicity and making illegal arrests of citizens.
- The articles also alleged that the plaintiffs misused public funds, committed police brutality, and were generally incompetent at their law enforcement jobs.
- Godbehere and the other plaintiffs claimed that these published statements were false and caused them significant emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard G. Godbehere and other law enforcement personnel (plaintiffs) sued Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (publishers) in an Arizona trial court for libel and false light invasion of privacy.
- The trial court granted the publishers' motion to dismiss the false light invasion of privacy claims.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The plaintiffs petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona recognize an independent cause of action for false light invasion of privacy as defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, without requiring a plaintiff to also prove the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Vice Chief Justice
Yes, Arizona recognizes an independent cause of action for false light invasion of privacy. The court adopted the standard articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, which does not require a plaintiff to prove the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that false light invasion of privacy protects different interests than defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Unlike IIED, which redresses 'extreme and outrageous' conduct, false light protects against publicity that is 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' and was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Unlike defamation, which protects reputation, false light protects a person's mental and emotional interest in being 'let alone.' However, the court established a critical limitation: public officials may not bring a false light claim for publications concerning their official acts or duties, as the public has a legitimate interest in such matters. Because the plaintiffs in this case are law enforcement officers and the articles concerned the performance of their public duties, their false light claim cannot succeed.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the tort of false light invasion of privacy in Arizona, aligning the state's jurisprudence with the Restatement and the majority of other jurisdictions. By distinguishing false light from intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court overruled prior appellate decisions that had conflated the two torts and imposed a higher 'outrageous conduct' standard on privacy claims. The most significant impact of the ruling is the creation of a strong barrier protecting speech about public officials; by precluding false light claims related to official conduct, the court heavily favors First Amendment interests over the privacy interests of government employees in the context of their public roles.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1989)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"