2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-6-2006 

# H elle r v . Ful are P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3687

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H elle r v . Ful ar e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 671. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/6711 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 3687

R O N A L D C . H E L L E R ; JO H N R . F L IN N ; M AT HE W W
. L I NDS E Y; OTTO G. BA RTO N, I I ; CH RI S W I LLI AM BEN DER

A ppel l ees v. J E R R Y C . F U L A R E , a /k /a J E R O M E F U L A R E , i n d i v i d u a l l y, a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty as a L o g an T o w n sh ip S u p erv isor,

A ppel l ant

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E W E S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

(D
. C
. C iv. N o . 0 4 -cv -00 2 6 5 J ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R
. G i bs on

____________ A r gued M ay17, 2006 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , V a n A N T W E R P E N a n d W E IS , C irc u it

Judg es. Fi l ed J ul y6, 2006

____________ S t e p h e n J
. P o l

j a k , E s q u i r e ( AR GUE D) M a rsh a ll, D e n n e h e y , W a rn e r, C o lem a n & G ro g g in

600 G r antSt r eet 2900 U
. S. St eel T ow er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 152192 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant S t e p h e n D. Wi c k s , E s q u i r e ( AR GUE D) 1 0 9 L ak em o n t Pa rk B o u leva rd A l t oona, PA 16602 A t t orneyforA ppel l ees

OP I NI ON

W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l i s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of comm on l aw im m u n ityto d e f

e n d a n t, a to w n sh ip su p e rv iso r, f o r a lleg e d ly d ef am atoryco m m en ts m ad e d u ri n g m ee ti n g s o f th e tow n sh ip’s boar d of s upervi s or s . T he s t at ement s w er e bas ed on i nform at i on defe ndantobt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of the B oar d’ s chai n of comm and pol i cy , w hi ch w as des i gned t o di s cour age i nt er fer ence w i th t he pol i ce de part m entbyi ndi vi dual s upervi s or s . T he D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that b yfa il ing to ab ide b ythe B o ard ’s pol i cy , defe ndants upervi s oract ed bey ond hi s author i tyand thus for fei t ed hi s r i ghtt o i m m uni tyfr om s ui t
. W e conc l ude thatthe s upervi s ori s ent i t l ed t o the abs ol ut e i m m uni tygr ant ed t o hi gh p u b lic o f f icia ls b yP e n n sy lv a n ia la w . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill re v e rs e a n d re m a n d
.

I. L ogan Tow ns hi p i s a muni ci pal i tyi n Penns y l vani a des i gnat ed as a s econd- cl as s t ow ns hi p and, as s uch, i s governed byan el ect ed boar d of s upervi s or s . T he def endant , Ful ar e, i s a mem berof the B oar d and pl ai nt i ffs ar e mem ber s of the t ow ns hi p pol i ce d e p a rt m e n t. I n 2 0 0 2 , th e B o a rd h ir e d a n e w c h ie f o f p o lic e . B e c a u se h e h a d n o t p re v io u slyw o rk e d a s a p o lice o f f ice r in P e n n s y lv a n ia , h e h a d to p a s s a s ta te c e rt if ic a tio n e x a m in a tio n . T w o of the pl ai nt i ffs r eport ed t o the t ow ns hi p’ s s ol i ci t orand m a n a g e r th a t th e n e w c h ief o f p o lice h a d e n g a g e d inT he al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand amended 1 compl ai ntdo notel abor at e on the type of c ons pi r acyFul ar e may h a v e b e e n a llu d in g to . H o w e v e r, th e a c c u ra c yo f h is s tate m e n ts d o e s n o ta f

f e c tth e i mm u n i tya n a l y s i s . F o rth i s p u rp o s e we accep tthe p l ai nti ffs’ al l egati on that the st at em ents w ere fal se a n d in ju re d th e p la in tif

f s ’ r e p u ta tio n s . 3 im p ro p ri e tie s d u ri n g th e e x a m in a tio n p ro c e s s .

D ur i ng a r egul ar , publ i c meet i ng of the B oar d on Sept ember8, 2004, Ful ar e s t at ed thathe had a s ked foran i nves t i gat i on of the to w n s h ip p o lic e d e p a rt m e n t b yth e s ta te a tto rn e yg e n e ra l. F u lar e f u rth e r sta ted th a t h e w a n ted to lea rn o f p o ss ib le m isc o n d u c t o r c rim in a l ac tiv ityw ith in th e p o lice d e p a rtm e n t. In a su b seq u en t B o ard m ee ti n g o n S ep tem b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , F u lare s ai d thatthe i ndi vi dual w ho admi ni s t er ed the ce r t i fi cat i on exami nat i on t o t he chi ef s us pect ed a c ons pi r acybyoffi cer s of the pol i ce de part m entagai ns tthe new pol i ce c hi ef w i th r es pect t o hi s cert i fi cat i on exami nat i on. Ful ar e comm ent ed thatthe
“ c o n s p ir a c yth e o ry h its th e n a il o n th e h e a d .” 1 A t a B o a rd m e e tin g o n O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , F u lar e re v e a led th a t a deputyatt orneygener al had t ol d hi m thatther e ar e “numer ous s er i ous m i s conducti s s ues [w i th the pol i ce de part m ent ] thatthe B oar d s houl d addr es s ” and thati ts houl d “hi r e a good a t t orney and cl ean the pl ace up. ” M or eover , Ful ar e comm ent ed thathe found the “c ons pi r acytheorypr ettyi nt er es t i ng. ” B efor e thes e eve nt s occurr ed, the B oar d had adopt ed a “ chai n of comm and” pol i cyw i th r es pectt o comm uni cat i ons betw een s upervi s or s and the pol i ce de partm ent
. I n a mem or andum of M arc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 ad d resse d to the tow n sh ip m an ag er, th e B o ard w rote tha t i t w o u ld co m m u n icate it s d ir ec ti v es o n p o li ce m att ers to the m an ag er w h o w o u ld co n v eythem to the p o li ce o ff icers. I n turn, the off

i cer s w er e t o r eportthei rconce rns t o the chi ef w ho w oul d pas s them on t o the managerw ho w oul d then cont actthe B o a rd . T h e m e m o ra n d u m f ro m th e B o a rd sta ted th a t itw o u ld4 “notpart i ci pat e i n vi ol at i ng the or derof the cha i n of comm and, norw i l l they t ol er at e any devi at i on fr om the cha i n of comm and. ” T h e m em o is co n sist en t w ith the p o li ce m an u al th at th e B o ard

a d o p te d s o m e y e a rs e a rl ie r.
P lai n ti ff s filed a co m p lai n t aga inst F u lare in the D istri ct C o u rt al l eging fed eral con st i tuti on al viol at i on s of t he D ue P rocess C la u s e a n d re ta lia to ry a c tio n s c o n tr a ry to th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. I n addi t i on, an amended compl ai nti ncl uded a c ountfor

d e f a m a tio n u n d e r s ta te la w . Ful ar e moved fordi s m i s s al of the def amat i on counton the gr ounds of abs ol ut e i m m uni tybas ed on s t at e l aw . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt re c o g n iz e d th a t, u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia ju ri s p ru d e n c e , a to w n sh ip su p e rv iso r is c o n sid e re d a “ h ig h p u b lic o f f icia l” gener al l yent i t l ed t o a comm on l aw i m m uni tyforal l eged defa m at orys t at ement s m ade dur i ng publ i c governm ent al m eet i ngs . H ow ever , the courtconcl uded thati m m uni tyw as not avai l abl e t o Ful ar e i n thi s cas e bec aus e hi s comm ent s conce rned m att er s “notdel egat ed t o hi m underthe Tow ns hi p code a nd

or di nance s . ” T he courtobs erved thatthe i m pr opr i et i es as s ert ed i n connec t i on w ith th e e m p lo ym e n t o f th e n e w p o lice c h ief

w e re a ttribu tab le to an out s i de age ncythathad admi ni s t er ed the t es tand, as s uch, w er e notpr oper l yr el at ed t o t ow ns hi p bus i nes s and thus not w i thi n the s cope of

Ful ar e’ s author i ty . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfur ther co n clud ed , h o w ev er, th at i f th e a ll eg ed im p rop ri eti es w ere m att er s of t ow ns hi p conce rn, Ful ar e’ s act i vi t i es vi ol at ed the to w n sh ip ’s “ c h a in o f

c o m m a n d ” p o licya n d , the re f o re , h is s ta te m e n ts w o u ld h a v e b e e n o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f h is a u th o ri ty. II. G ener al l y , a deni al of a mot i on t o di s m i s s , part i cul ar l yw hen o n lyo n e c o u n t of

a c o m p lai n t i s af

fe cted , w o u ld n o t sup p o rt appel l at e r evi ew i n thi s C our t
. H ow ever , w e have found j ur i s di ct i on w her e a mot i on t o di s m i s s i s bas ed on deni al of i m m uni tyunders t at e l aw . See K ul w i cki v. D aw s on, 969 F. 2d 1454, 1459 ( 3d C i r . 1992)
. A s w e ca ut i oned i n B r ow n v. G r abow s ki , 922 F. 2d 1097 ( 3d C i r . 1990) , thi s exce pt i on t o theA num berof opi ni ons fr om the U ni t ed St at es 2 D i s tr i ctC our t s i n Penns y l vani a have expr es s ed the vi ew thatthe p a ss a g e o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P o lit ica l S u b d iv isio n T o rt C laim A ct( “PST C A ”) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at
. §§ 8541, et
. s eq. , abr ogat ed hi gh publ i c off

i ci al i m m uni ty . See W ei ns t ei n v. B ul l i ck, 82 7 F. Supp. 1193 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1993) ; L ynch v. B or ough of A m bl er, N o. 94- cv- 6401, 1996 W L 283643 ( E
. D
. Pa. M ay29, 1996) ; M urphy v. O r l off, N o. 04- cv- 3618, 2004 W L 2861891 ( E
. D
. Pa. D ec. 13, 2004) ; Sm yth v. B arnes , N o. 94- cv- 0930 1995 W L 576935 ( M
. D
. Pa. Sept
. 25, 1995)
. H ow ever , thes e di s tr i ctcourtcas es m i s cons trued Penns y l vani a’ s comm on l aw i m m uni ty . T o the 5 g e n e ra l ru le is lim ited to situ a tio n s w h e re th e c h a llen g e d sta te l aw i m m un i tyapp l i es as a ban o n a suiti t sel f, rather than as a

s i m pl e bart o l i abi l i ty . I d. at1106. L i ndnerv. M ol l an, 677 A
. 2d 1194 ( Pa. 1996) , s et s outthe s cope of i m m uni tyforpubl i c off i ci al s i n Penns y l vani a. I n L i ndner , the S u p re m e C o u rt o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia r e m a rk e d , “a b so lu te p riv ileg e is
‘ des i gned t o pr ot ectthe off i ci al fr om the s ui ti t s el f, fr om the e x p e n se , p u b licitya n d d a n g e r o f d e f e n d in g th e g o o d f

a ith o f h is publ i c ac t i ons befor e the j ury . ’ ” I d. at1195 ( quot i ng M o n tg o m e ry v . C ity o f

P h ila d e lp h ia , 1 4 0 A .2 d 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 (1 9 5 8 ))
. I n l i ghtof thi s expans i ve def i ni t i on of the s cope a nd purpos e of Penns y l vani a’ s i m m uni tyforhi gh publ i c off i ci al s , w e conc l ude thatw e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on.

III
. P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s d o c trin e o f a b so lu te p riv ileg e f

o r h ig h p u b lic off i ci al s

“ is u n lim ited a n d e x e m p ts a h ig h p u b lic o f f icia l f ro m a ll civ il s ui t s fordamages ar i s i ng outof fa l s e def amat orys t at ement s and even f r om s t at ement s oract i ons m ot i vat ed bym al i ce, pr ovi ded the s t at ement s ar e made orthe ac t i ons ar e t aken i n the cour s e of th e o f f icia l’s d u ties o r p o w e rs a n d w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is a u th o rity , o r a s it is s o m e tim e s e x p re ss e d , w ith in h is

ju ri s d ic tio n .” M a tso n v . M a rg io tti , 8 8 A .2 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 5 (P a . 1 9 5 2 ) (e m p h a sis in or i gi nal )
. T he pr i vi l ege i s notforthe bene fi tof the off i ci al , but 2ext entthatthe doctr i ne i s appl i ed t o thos e des i gnat ed as “hi gh p u b li c o ff

ici als, ” ith as in d ee d su rviv ed d esp it e the statu te’s l i m i t at i ons as t o otherempl oy ees . See Li ndner , 677 A
. 2d 1194 ( Pa. 1996) ; Fact orv. G oode , 6 1 2 A .2 d 5 9 1 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 1 9 9 2 ) ( c o m m o n law im m u n ityf o r h ig h g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls survi ved the P S T C A ). A ccordi ng l y , the d i stri ctcou rtop i nions, to th e e x ten t th a t th e ye x p re ss d o u b t as to th e c o n tin u e d v itality o f P e n n s yl v a n i a ’ s c o m m o n l a w h i g h p u b l i c o f f i c i a l i m m u n i ty, a re n o t co rre c t. 6 t o pr ot ect“‘ s oci ety ’ s i nt er es ti n the unfe t t er ed di s cus s i on of publ i c bus i nes s and i n ful l publ i c know l edge of the fa ct s and conductof s uch bus i nes s . ’ ” Li ndner , 677 A
. 2d at1196 ( quot i ng

M o n tg o m e ry, 1 4 0 A .2 d a t 1 0 3 ). I n H al l v. K i ger , 795 A
. 2d 497 ( Pa. C om m w . C t
. 2002) , the Penns y l vani a C om m onw eal th C our tcons i der ed tw o fac t or s t o be r el evantt o det erm i ni ng w hethera hi gh publ i c off i ci al act ed w ith in th e sc o p e o f

h is d u ties a t th e tim e o f th e a lleg e d ly defa m at orys t at ement s : ( 1) the form al i tyof the forum i n w hi ch the al l eged de famat i on occurr ed; and ( 2) the r el at i ons hi p of the l egi t i m at e s ubj ectof governm ent al conce rn t o the per s on s eeki ng

d a m a g e s . Id . a t 5 0 1
. T he co m m on l aw i m m un i tyof h i gh pu bli c off i ci al s has i t s l i m i t s, as the Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a made cl eari n M cK i bben v. Schm ot zer , 700 A
. 2d 484 ( Pa. Super
. C t
. 1997)
. T her e, the m ay orof a bor ough w as ent i t l ed t o i m m uni tyforhar s h and untrue s t at ement s s he made i n a pr es s r el eas e expl ai ni ng the di s char ge of the pol i ce c hi ef. H ow ever , the i m m uni tydi d not e x ten d to c o m m e n ts th e m a y o r m a d e su b se q u e n tlya s a p riv a te ci t i zen f ol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on the cr i m i nal compl ai nts he had br oughtagai ns tthe pol i ce c hi ef. T he Super i orC our temphasi zed th a tth e m a yo r ’ s p r e s s r e l e a s e w a s i s s u e d i n h e ro f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty, buthers t at ement s aft erthe hea r i ng w er e made w hen s he w as “ n o m o re th a n a p riv a te c iti z e n se e k in g to e n f o rc e h e r p riv a te c ri m in a l c o m p la in t.” Id . a t 4 9 2 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)
. In th e M cK ibb en o p inion , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p erior C o u rt i ncl uded a l i s tof governm entoffi ci al s cons i der ed t o be hi gh publ i c off

i ci al s . I d. at489- 90. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zedI n t he Penuel cas e, the chi ef of pol i ce di s char ged 3 an off i cerw i thoutfol l ow i ng the pr ocedur es s etouti n a re s o lu tio n p re v io u s ly ad o p te d b yth e b o a rd o f s u p e rv is o rs . B eca us e of thatfai l ur e, the C om m onw eal th C our tdi r ect ed the b o a rd o f s u p e rv is o rs to re in s ta te th e o f f ic e r.
7 i n the ca s e bef

or e us , a t ow ns hi p s upervi s ori s ent i t l ed t o that des i gnat i on. See J onnetv. D odi ck, 244 A
. 2d 751, 753 ( Pa. 1968)
. W e mayther efor e pr ocee d t o det erm i ne i f the other p re re q u is ite s f

o r i m m u n ity h a v e b e e n s a tis f ie d
. A s t o author i tyoverm att er s r el at ed t o and i nvol vi ng the pol i ce d ep artm en t, P en n sy lvan ia st atutes p rov ide th at a tow n sh ip b o ard of s upervi s or s “s hal l pr ovi de forthe or gani zat i on and s u p e rv is io n . . . o f

th e p o lic e o f

f ic e rs . . ..” 5 3 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 66902. I n gener al , the B oar d i s “cha r ged w i th the gene r al governance of the t ow ns hi p and the exe cut i on of l egi s l at i ve, exec ut i ve and a dm i ni s tr at i ve pow er s i n or der
. . . t o s ecur e the heal th, s afe tyand w el far e of the ci t i zens of the t ow ns hi p. ” 53

P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 6 5 6 0 7 (1 ). T her e ca n be no doubtthatthe ul t i m at e author i tyt o over s ee the pol i ce de part m entr es t s w i th the B oar d gi ven the r es pons i bi l i t i es as s i gned t o i tbys t atut e. T he C om m onw eal th C our tcomm ent ed i n Penuel v. U w chl an Tow ns hi p Pol i ce Com m i s s i on, 397 A
. 2d 8 6 5 (P a. C o m m w . C t. 1 9 7 9 ), that “[ t] o w n sh ip su p erv isors .
. . are v e ste d w ith b ro a d a u th o rity
. . . w ith re sp e c t to th e e m p lo ym e n t, compensa t i on and t erm i nat i on of t ow ns hi p pol i ce of fi cer s . . . . ” Id . at 8 6 7 . T h e c o u rt w e n t o n to sa y , “w h e re th e T o w n sh ip s upervi s or s exer ci s e thatauthor i ty , theyar e, of cour s e, bound by

thei row n rul es . ” I d. 3 I ti s undi s put ed thatFul ar e’ s al l eged de famat oryr emar ks occu rr ed d uri ng form al pu bli c m eet i ng s of t he B oard. T hese s ta te m e n ts a re th e f

o u n d a tio n o f

th e d e f a m a tio n c la im b e f

o re u s . P lai n ti ff s co n tend that “tri g g ering ev en ts” fo r F u lare’s s t at ement s occurr ed w hen he pe r s onal l ydi s cus s ed the cert i fi cat i on i m pr opr i et i es w i th one of the t ow ns hi p pol i ce o f f ic e rs a n d w h e n h e c o n ta c te d th e a tto rn e yg e n e ra l’ s o f f ic e . Pl ai nt i ffs as s ertthatthes e ac t i ons vi ol at ed the t ow ns hi p’ s w r i t t en8 pol i cythatthe B oar d w oul d br oach s uch mat t er s fi r s tt o the to w n s h ip m a n a g e r w h o w o u ld th e n f o llo w u p o n th e m a tte r. E ven i f w e as s um e thatthe def endant ’ s conductvi ol at ed the B oar d’ s pol i cy , thatchai n of comm and br eac h w oul d not cons t i tut e def

amat i on, nori s thatconductr el evantt o the defa m at i on cl ai m . I ti s i m m at er i al thatFul ar e’ s s our ce of i nform at i on forthe al l egedl ydefa m at orys t at ement s w as der i ved fr om act i vi tyar guabl yi n contr avent i on of the cha i n of comm and. I ns t ead, i ti s the cont entand cont extof the s ta te m e n ts th a t m u s t b e th e f o c u s o f th e im m u n ity a n a lysis
. Pl ai nt i ffs ar e att empt i ng t o s tr et ch thei rcompl ai ntbey ond the cl ai m s fordefa m at i on byi nvoki ng the “c hai n of comm and” p o lic y . In L in d n e r, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt re p e a ted its l anguage fr om M at s on, thatabs ol ut e i m m uni typr ot ect s an offi ci al “eve n fr om s t at ement s . . . m ot i vat ed bym al i ce, pr ovi ded th e s ta te m e n ts a re m a d e . . . w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is a u th o ri ty. . . .
” L in d n e r, 6 7 7 A .2 d a t 1 1 9 5 (q u o tin g M a ts o n , 8 8 A .2 d a t 8 9 5 ). A n exampl e of pr i vi l eged s peec h thatcoul d be cons i der ed m al i ci ous ora per s onal att ack oc curr ed i n L i nder , w her e the m ay ors ai d, “A nd I ’ l l s ayi tr i ghtt o y ourfac e; y ou’ r e the vi l l age id io t . . . Y o u ’v e b e e n d ip p in g in to th e till. I k n o w f o r a f a c t. A n d y o u k n o w I k n o w .” L in d n e r, 6 7 7 A .2 d a t 1 1 9 4
. S i mi l a r l y , i n F a c t o rv . Go o d e , 6 1 2 A. 2 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 2 ( P a . Co mm w. C t
. 1992) , the may orw as i m m une fr om a def amat i on cl ai m for st at em ents descri bing plai nti ffs as “dead beats ” and “t ax ch eat s” w ho “thi nk they ’ r e above the l aw . ” A notherexampl e occ urr ed i n Ap p e l v . T o wn s h i p o f Wa rwi c k , 8 2 8 A. 2 d 4 6 9 ( P a . Co mm w. C t
. 2003) , w her e a t ow ns hi p s upervi s oracc us ed a c i t i zen of

b e in g “ a n a d m itte d th ie f.” Id . a t 4 7 1
. I n O s i r i s E nt erpr i s es v. B or ough of W hi t ehal l , 877 A
. 2d 560 ( Pa. C om m w . C t
. 2005) , the bor ough counci l adopt ed a mot i on d e c la ri n g th a t a c o n tr a c to r w a s n o t a re s p o n s ib le b id d e r. R ecogni zi ng the veryr eal harm thatcoul d occurt o a contr act or from such a d esi gn at i on , the C om m on w eal th C ou rtnev ertheles s appl i ed i m m uni ty . T he courts ai d, “w her e an of fi ci al i s ent i t l ed to ab so lute p ri v il eg e, an yp erso n al or p o li ti ca l m o ti v es a re9 im m a ter ial, a s is th e p re se n c e o f m a lice o r w a n t o f

re a so n a b le and pr obabl e ca us e orthe fa ctthatthe i nnocentm ays uffe r

ir re p a ra b le h a rm .” Id . a t 5 6 6
. S im ilarly , in H a ll, a f

ter a c iti z e n re q u e ste d th a t th e c o u n c il i nves t i gat e the chi ef of

pol i ce’ s pos s i bl e cr i m i nal r ecor d, the courtdi d notcons i derw hetherper s onal m ot i ves orani m us aff ect ed a bor ough counci l m an’ s publ i c r es pons e thatthe ci t i zen

p h ys i c a l l y a b u s e d h i s f

a m i l y. It f o llo w s th a t b e c a u se P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts h a v e re p e a ted ly app l i ed im m un i tyt o fals e st at em ents as w el l as m al i ci ou s ones, th e f a c t th a t F u lar e m a yh a v e o b tain e d h is in f o rm a tio n in vi ol at i on of a Boar d pol i cy , does notr emove t he s hi el d of

im m u n ity. M or eover , Ful ar e’ s s t at ement s w er e made dur i ng form al m eet i ngs and w er e w i thi n the ambi tof the B oar d’ s over s i ghtof the pol i ce de part m ent
. T hes e mat t er s w er e s t atut or i l yentrus t ed to the B o ard , an d there fo re the stat em en ts w ere w ith in F u lare’s ju ri s d ic tio n a s o n e o f

th e to w n s h ip s u p e rv is o rs . W e conc l ude thatdefe ndantFul ar e metal l of the pr er equi s i t es forthe abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege of a hi gh publ i c off

i ci al under P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g im m u n ity . W e w ill th e re f o re re v e rse th e o rd e r o f Ju ly 19, 2005 as t o the def

amat i on countand r emand t he ca s e t o the D i stri ctC ou rtfor r esol uti on of the rem ai ning i ssues.