gist of this particular case i believe is the motivation of officer and before he did anything other than take or contacting and his wife noble analysis of the facts that were presented to the trial judge so that this panel can see if there was in fact a genuine issue  his analysis of the case i believe asked the correct question in his memorandum order which is why did officer morse do what he did and does it fit within the two provisions that he cited to a one and two time as being a bar so the motivation the pendent police officer was found to be relevant by wyler and i believe is really the only relevant point determining whether his actions are immune to the act or not it's indicated mr morse's actions in contact with the media was the first step you took after to suggest that's highly unusual in a criminal case is it true that police often because i think that the genuine issue is from the plaintiff standpoint is that his actions were not motivated by police procedure but by his own personal vendetta if you want to see that you would have to essentially express or disagree with the claim to follow the goldberg case goldberg case did not involve an expression of an investigation of a felony to the mass media well is the correct state statute i think that statute is as i went on in my brief subject to interpretation i don't believe it's employees if it seems to fit and i'm not sure why it doesn't with the stature what occurred in this case by passing that tickler statute but a step further the the immunity i mean which ever section you're referring to and there's a lot of different ones it's fairly complex statute i believe has its purpose whether you're a cop a treasurer a clerk in the clerk office that you're doing your work and your work may have caused some defamatory expression to officer ponder said chief just turn into the news to me but let me then he's saying is that position that he was trying to get the information out to see if there were other victims who would come forward that's what he said in his year after he did what he did but i'd say that's a picture big that's not what you want to get all that's genuine issue of fact why did you do it who's going to testify to anything differently he well and then in the jury will have a will have an opportunity to decide whether is telling the truth he's going to say he didn't do it to bring other victims out well it will be that will be it certainly on the stand subject cross examination news that is a question of fact after the curious given instruction as to what it means to do something in the scope of them one as to whether he was in fact doing it even though it was outside his duties that subsequent to the checking of this report before did anything else he released the information to a token stage rock and did your legs that he did that trying to understand your theory and i guess like you're fully free to i'm suggesting what i thought it was but apparently our world you're not alleging this is outside the scope of his employment wrong and it wasn't what the cop did and therefore we're going to hold him liable and not village or they say you know he call from them you call from the police station and the man he had  the pledge negligent misrepresentation or the proper provision of information of being an issue at this point but that really wasn't the position of i don't think it was ever i don't think the issue was never brought up that i recall clear front of the motion to reconsider this particular case involves a police officer who certainly was in the scope of his employment but didn't act that is not liable for injury caused by the provision of information properly disseminated that's a good argument but the same time i think and i think could be made that the legislature clearly in providing for if unity for police officers on whether or not this was necessary proper done under the appropriate circumstances it indeed is just this pope pointed up it's conceivable that he might have a good motive albeit mistaken or the nothing that we would know so they find persuasive by saying well i want to see if other people would have come forward to let him know about all this that we've been the chief of police say that it's probably a good thing to do but that we really want the courts to be second guessing or juries second guessing police of this  why why i'm saying he didn't do it for police purpose he did it for his own personal satisfaction it's see that seems to be the problem if they question the judge child progress is why they do it we won't know whether there's liability attached to this action until we've had a resolution sometime later after carefully examining cross examining all the people involved whereas the legislature may have sided with the security statute that's exactly the kind of surely the legislature would not have wanted this kind of thing to occur when they envision community for police officers or other public employees acting in the scope of their employment which as you information other than for personal self and grace from the perhaps yes but what did happen in that case a complaint came forward of the parents and they tried to go to the school board of the plane plaintiff strikes a president school board nothing was happening and so he's he did what he had done in the past sometimes going to the press asked for if there's anybody else and they came forward i believe because we had the three statements signed by the three girls i believe the other girls but some didn't want to sign a statement they work use he was subject at least some process someone found a police officer probable cause that he had committed an offense because picture and someone else who to seek help from the media find this person committed a serious felony negligent act and trying to do it i have no i have no problem with us at all but i think i he had a whole list of people to investigate to to question he had parents see him bus drivers here school administrators good teachers he had players present coaches past i don't think this court formulated policy well you can do that if it's successful such as concerts just it wasn't successful this case was investigated for three months by the set fast reviewed by a prosecutor and said there's nothing here