Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co.
8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2344, 442 N.E.2d 129, 2 Ohio App.3d 377 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The publication of a person's name and address, even as the parent of an adult murder suspect, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy if the information is newsworthy and of legitimate public concern, and does not involve false information placing the individual in a false light.
Facts:
- A newspaper article was printed in the Columbus Dispatch.
- The article identified Norman L. Strutner by name and address.
- The article stated that Norman L. Strutner was the parent of Brent Strutner.
- Brent Strutner had been arrested for assaulting a police officer in Willoughby, Ohio, and for assault and resisting arrest in Grandview Heights.
- Brent Strutner was being questioned as a suspect in the rape-murder of an eight-year-old girl in Upper Arlington, Ohio.
- The newspaper article noted the distance of Norman L. Strutner's home from the murder scene and Brent Strutner's apartment from the murder scene.
- Brent Strutner was an emancipated adult and did not live with Norman L. Strutner.
- The Upper Arlington Chief of Police did not advise the Columbus Dispatch of Norman L. Strutner's name or address and attempted to avoid publicity regarding Brent Strutner.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman L. Strutner (Plaintiff) brought an action claiming invasion of privacy against the Dispatch Printing Co. (Defendants) in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the matter to be 'a newsworthy item of legitimate public concern.'
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Franklin County Court of Appeals.
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 a newspaper's publication of an adult murder suspect's parent's name and address, along with their relationship and home location relative to the crime, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy if the information is factually accurate and the subject matter is of legitimate public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Whiteside, P.J.
No, a newspaper's publication of a murder suspect's parent's name and address, along with their relationship and home location relative to the crime, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy when the information is newsworthy and of legitimate public concern. The court recognized the right of privacy based on `Housh v. Peth`, which includes protection against unwarranted appropriation, publicizing private affairs with no legitimate public concern, or wrongful intrusion into private activities causing suffering. Here, the publication involved Norman L. Strutner's name and address, and his identification as the father of a murder suspect. The court found that such information, including an individual's address, is often publicly ascertainable (e.g., from telephone directories). Identifying a person as the parent of an adult murder suspect, even if emancipated, is considered sufficiently newsworthy under the circumstances and not an 'unreasonable intrusion' into the parent's private affairs or life. The public has a legitimate concern in knowing the name of a person being questioned in a vicious rape-murder, and information about their parents, especially when tied to proximity to the crime scene, is not unreasonable to publish. Regarding a potential 'false-light' invasion of privacy claim, even assuming Ohio recognizes it, such a claim requires the publication of false information with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, as established in `Time, Inc. v. Hill`. The facts published about Norman L. Strutner were conceded to be true, and the alleged minor inaccuracies (distances) were not sufficient to support a false-light claim, nor did the complaint allege falsity. While acknowledging that the publicity caused Norman L. Strutner "humiliation, embarrassment, shame and anguish," the court concluded that such suffering cannot give rise to a cause of action if the publicity is not unreasonable and involves a matter of legitimate public concern.
Concurring - Reilly and Norris, JJ.
Reilly and Norris, JJ., concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent regarding the balance between individual privacy rights and the public's right to information, particularly in the context of criminal investigations. It underscores that the newsworthiness doctrine provides broad protection for media organizations, even when publishing accurate, non-private information that causes embarrassment or distress to individuals tangentially connected to a crime. The court's broad interpretation of 'legitimate public concern,' extending to the identity and residence of a suspect's parent, effectively raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking to claim invasion of privacy in such contexts. The decision also reinforces the high standard for 'false-light' claims by requiring demonstrable falsity and 'actual malice' in public interest matters.
