Kelley v. Tanoos
865 N.E.2d 593 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Defamatory statements made to a private citizen are protected by a qualified 'public interest' privilege if the statements are made to assist law enforcement with an ongoing criminal investigation.
Facts:
- On January 17, 2001, someone fired a shotgun at Daniel T. Tanoos, the Superintendent of the Vigo County School Corporation, grazing his head.
- Police identified Paul Kelley, an employee at the Gibault School, as a suspect due to his known animosity toward Tanoos.
- James Sinclair, the head of Gibault School, became concerned about rumors that Gibault was not cooperating with the police investigation and suggested a meeting with Tanoos to repair relations.
- Tanoos informed the police about the meeting, who then gave Tanoos questions to ask Sinclair and equipped him with a wire to record their conversation.
- During the meeting, Tanoos made several statements to Sinclair, including, "I’m as convinced as the police are that Jay Kelley did it" and that Kelley had failed a polygraph test.
- Kelley was never charged with any crime related to the shooting incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Kelley sued Daniel Tanoos for defamation in the trial court.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Tanoos, and denied the motion for the plaintiff, Kelley.
- Kelley, as the appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed.
- Tanoos, as the appellee from the intermediate appeal, petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, 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 the qualified 'public interest' privilege protect an individual from defamation liability for making accusatory statements to a private citizen when those statements are made with the knowledge and cooperation of law enforcement to assist in a criminal investigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes, the qualified 'public interest' privilege protects such statements. The court held that while Tanoos's statements were not protected by the 'common interest' privilege because he and Sinclair lacked a sufficiently concurrent interest, they were protected by an extension of the 'public interest' privilege. This privilege, traditionally applied to communications made directly to law enforcement, is extended to cover communications to private citizens when they are intended to assist police in investigating and apprehending criminals. The court reasoned that this extension serves the public policy of encouraging citizens to aid in criminal investigations. Because Tanoos's statements were made at the behest of law enforcement to elicit information for an ongoing investigation, they fall under this privilege. The court further found that Kelley failed to meet his burden of showing that Tanoos abused the privilege by acting with ill will, engaging in excessive publication, or making the statements without a belief in their truth.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of qualified privilege in Indiana defamation law by extending the 'public interest' privilege to communications with private citizens, not just law enforcement. Previously, the privilege was understood to protect citizens reporting crimes to the police. This ruling creates a new precedent that shields individuals from liability when they make defamatory statements to third parties as part of a cooperative effort with an official police investigation. This change enhances protection for crime victims and citizen informants but may make it more difficult for uncharged suspects to seek remedy for reputational harm caused during an investigation.
Unlock the full brief for Kelley v. Tanoos