Hale v. City of Billings, Police Dept.
986 P.2d 413, 295 Mont. 495, 1999 MT 213 (1999)
Rule of Law:
Statements of opinion on matters of public concern are not constitutionally protected in a defamation action if they contain a provably false factual connotation or can be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts, particularly when the opinion implies the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts.
Facts:
- On March 25, 1995, an incident occurred between Mark Hale and his estranged wife, Kathryn.
- A misdemeanor domestic abuse complaint was filed against Hale on April 2, 1995, and an arrest warrant was issued the next day.
- For the following ten months, police officers made several unsuccessful attempts to serve the warrant at Hale's home but intentionally did not try his known places of business or contact him by phone or mail, leaving Hale unaware of the warrant.
- On January 9, 1996, the Billings Police Department randomly selected Hale's name from thousands of outstanding warrants and provided his photo and information to TCI for a 'most wanted' list.
- On January 22, 1996, TCI began airing a program, 'Yellowstone County's Most Wanted,' featuring Hale's photo and describing him as a 'fugitive,' 'most wanted,' and potentially 'armed and dangerous.'
- Hale was arrested at his home on January 24, 1996, shortly after the broadcast began.
- The broadcast featuring Hale's information continued to air multiple times daily until January 29, 1996, five days after his arrest.
- Following requests by Hale, the Billings Police notified TCI to remove his information on January 30, 1996, after the program's scheduled run had already expired.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Hale filed a complaint alleging defamation and negligence against the City of Billings Police Department and Billings Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI) in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County (a state trial court).
- Both the Billings Police and TCI moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no material facts in dispute and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for both defendants on all claims.
- Mark Hale, as Appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do descriptive terms like 'fugitive,' 'most wanted,' and 'armed and dangerous,' when used in a crime-watch broadcast about a person with a misdemeanor warrant, constitute constitutionally protected opinion that cannot be the basis for a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nelson
No, such terms do not constitute protected opinion when they imply provably false factual connotations. An opinion is not afforded constitutional protection if it is not based on disclosed facts and creates a reasonable inference that it is based on undisclosed defamatory facts. Here, the terms 'most wanted,' 'fugitive,' and 'armed and dangerous' implied a knowledge of facts beyond those disclosed, creating a false factual connotation. The term 'most wanted' was false because Hale's name was chosen randomly; 'fugitive' was false because he was unaware of the warrant and not fleeing; and 'armed and dangerous' implied undisclosed facts about his propensity for violence which were not supported by the underlying misdemeanor charge. The court also held that any official duty privilege claimed by the police was, at best, conditional, and whether it was abused is a question for the jury. Finally, the court found that the police owed Hale a duty of reasonable care to timely notify the broadcaster of his arrest to prevent further harm, and whether that duty was breached is also a question for the jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Montana's defamation law by adopting the post-Milkovich standard, which rejects a simple, protective dichotomy between 'fact' and 'opinion.' It establishes that media and law enforcement cannot use highly charged labels like 'fugitive' or 'most wanted' and then claim they are non-actionable opinions if those labels imply a false and defamatory factual basis. The ruling empowers juries to determine the truth or falsity of such statements and whether any conditional privilege was abused, thereby limiting the ability of defendants to win defamation cases on summary judgment. It also establishes a duty of care for law enforcement agencies when they provide information to third parties for public dissemination, requiring them to act reasonably to prevent harm once the information becomes inaccurate.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hale v. City of Billings, Police Dept. (1999)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"