Dan B. answered • 12/29/19
Criminal Justice PhD Student & (Ret) Police Chief w/25+ yrs experience
Generally speaking, the government is immune from defamation claims. There is a long history that supports governmental immunity for various acts that dates back to before the United States was formed. Partly because the government needs latitude to carry out its duties, and partly because lawsuits against the government could significantly impede the ability of the government to act, government officials enjoy a certain level of immunity from liability for defamation in the form of libel and slander. There are laws at the various local and state levels that spell out the government's immunity; however, federal immunity is established by federal tort laws such as the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Westfall Act. Those laws provide remedies for other types of injuries but specifically exclude defamation as an act for which the government can be held liable.
Even if the government were not immune, again generally speaking, the first thing to consider would be whether the press release contained factual information or false information stated with specific intent to harm an the individual. If it contains only information about what was reported to the police, what the police found at the scene, and those persons who were arrested, there could be no defamation suit because the press release simply stated facts. Even though those facts may be harmful to a person well into the future, it does not change the issue that they are indeed facts. Arrest records are public information so therefore a press release that identifies those who were arrested is a statement of fact. One might attempt a constructive case if they could prove a person was illegally arrested with the specific intent to harm the person through the release of their name as an arrested person, but doing so would be almost impossible even if it were the case. While it may not be fair to the individual in the grand scheme, so long as a press release contains factual information the government's immunity would not even enter the picture. If the press release wrongfully identified an arrestee, then the person whose name was wrongfully printed could claim defamation; however, the case would be disallowed due to the immunity clause. Additionally, the government exists for society as a whole and is not responsible to any one single individual. While the government often acts to protect or help an individual, especially with respect to police and other first response organizations, it still exists solely for the greater good of society.
As technology improves and access to information continues to become easier and faster, the impact that police press releases have on individuals is something to consider. There are multiple stakeholders in the issue though such as the news media that prints the information, the police agency that proactively releases the information, the individuals involved, and the citizens who receive the information. Our government works on a loosely established concept of transparency so the citizens can be informed of governmental activity and therefore informally monitor the government's actions. Withholding information such as arrest records could create an environment where it is easier for the police to act without oversight and abuses of authority could increase. While almost all law enforcement officers are people of integrity and would not take advantage of such a confidential system or stand for anyone who did, there are a few who would most certainly stretch the truth or lie to accomplish their objectives as it happens even in our "transparent" operation of government. Perhaps a potential solution to the problem of a person being convicted in the court of public opinion could be a requirement for all police press releases to contain a reminder that arrest does not signify guilt and that those people listed in the press release are innocent until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by trial in a court of law.
