I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO M A R T I A L H
. L E D V I N A and P AT RI CI A F
. L E DVI NA,

P l ai nti ffs/ A pp el l ants , v. A N T H O N Y L
. C E R A SA N I and M A R G A R E T C E R A S A N I,

D efen dan t s/A pp el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2005- 0035

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C
- 20040200 H onor abl e J ane L. E i kl eberry , J udge

AFFI RM ED
D avi d J
. E uchner
B ancr oftSusa & G al l ow ay B yD ougl as S. J ohn T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r P lain tiff

s/A p p e llan ts
T ucs on A t t orney s forD efe ndant s / A ppel l ees
E S P I N O S A , J udge. O CT 31 2006 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

¶1 I n t hi s cas e, w e ar e aske d t o deci de w hether a per s on w ho r eport s an al l eged
cr i m e t o pol i ce i s s ubj ect t o bei ng s ued for m aki ng the r eport . A ppel l an ts M arti al and Patr i ci a Ledvi na have appea l ed fr om the tr i al court ’ s entryof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof appel l ees A nthonyand M ar gar et C er as ani i n the L edvi nas ’ defa m at i on act i on ar i s i ng fr om
s uch a r eport that M r . C er as ani m ade t o l aw enfor cement author i t i es . B eca us e w e conc l ude th e tr i a l c o u r tc o r r e c t l yd e t e r mi n e d th e r e p o rtwa s a b s o l u t e l yp r i v i l e g e d , we a f f i r m. Fac t s and Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 A l though w e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng p artyb e lo w , Johns on v. His pani c Broadcas t ers of

Tucs on , 196 A r i z. 597, ¶ 2, 2 P. 3d 687, 688 ( A pp. 2000) , the es s en ti al f act s ar e s tr ai ght forw ar d and undi s put ed. A ft erA nt hony C er as ani r eport ed t o t he M ar ana Pol i ce D epart m ent that hi s nei ghbor , M art i al L edvi na, had
s l as hed the t i r es of C er as ani ’ s r ecr eat i onal vehi cl e, the t ow n pr os ecut or i n D ece m ber2003 char ged Ledvi na w i th cr i m i nal damage u nderA
. R
. S. § 13- 1602. A few w eeks l at er , t he L e d v inas sued the C eras anis for defam at i on , cl ai m i ng C eras ani’ s r epo rtw as m ade “in
r eckl es s di s r egar d of the truth” a n d “u tt er ed mal i ci ous l y . ” I n A pr i l 2004, befor e tr i al , t he p ro se c u to r m o v e d to d ism iss th e c rim in a l ch a rg e s a g a in st L e d v in a w ith o u t p re ju d ice , d u e to i ns uffi ci entevi de nce. I n t he defa m at i on act i on, the C er as ani s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent on the s ol e gr oun d thatC er as ani ’ s compl ai ntt o the pol i ce w as abs ol ut el ypr i vi l eged, pr ecl udi ng anyr ecove r yas a mat t er of l aw . A ft era hea r i ng, the tr i al courtfound ther e w as
n o c o n tro lli n g A riz o n a p re c e d e n t, r u le d th a t C e ra sa n i’s p o lice c o m p lain t w a s a b so lu tely pr i vi l eged as s t at ement s r el at ed t o a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng under s ect i ons 587 and 598 of t he3

R estatem en t ( S ec o n d ) of T o rt s (19 7 7 ), an d g ran ted th e C era s a n is ’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. St andard of R evi ew ¶3 W e re v iew a trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo and in d e p e n d e n tly d e te rm in e w h e th e r a c o u rt ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s w e re c o rr e c t. V alder Law O

f cs.
v. Keener L aw F i rm , 2 1 2 A ri z. 24 4 , ¶ 1 4 , 1 2 9 P .3 d 9 6 6 , 9 7 1 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr operlygr ant ed w hen ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the
m ovanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m att erof l aw . A r i z. R
. C i v. P. 56( c) , 16 A
. R
. S. , Pt
. 2. A d e f e n d a n t is e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t w h e n h e o r sh e d e m o n stra tes th a t, w ith ci t at i ons t o r elev an tdi s covery , the pl ai nt i ff c annotes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. H ydr ocul t ur e, I

nc. v. C oopers & Lybr and , 174 A r i z. 2 7 7, 284, 848 P. 2d 856, 863 ( A pp. 1 9 9 2 )
. Wh e th e ra n d t o wh a te x t e n ta p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e s i s a ma t t e ro f l a w we r e v i e w de novo
. See G r een Acr es Trus tv. London , 1 4 1 A ri z. 60 9 , 6 1 3 , 6 8 8 P
. 2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 1 (19 8 4 ). D i s cus s i on ¶4 T h e L ed v inas co n tend the tri al co u rterred in f ind ing C era san i’ s d ef

am a to ry
s t at ement s s hi el ded byan abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege. O n appea l , as bel o w , the C er as ani s have
as s e r t e d th a t , e v e n wer e th e Le d v i n a s ’ c l a i ms tru e , Anth o n y Ce r a s a n i ’ s c o mpl a i nt t o l aw enfor cementw as abs ol ut el yp r i vi l eged, pr event i ng the Ledvi nas fr om m ai nt ai ni ng a defa m at i on act i on. W hen s t at ement s ar e abs ol ut el ypr i vi l eged, the s peake r i s i m m une fr om
c iv il l iab ili tya n d c o u rts d o n o t in q u ire in to th e d e c lar a n t’s m o tiv e s o r w h e th e r th e sta tem e n ts
w e re m a d e in g o o d f

a ith
. S o bolv. A lar con , 212 A r i z. 315, ¶ 11, 131 P. 3d 487, 490 ( A pp.4

2006) ( al s o not i ng thatthe t erm s “abs ol ut e p ri vi l ege” and “i m m uni ty ” ar e oft en us ed int er change abl yi n defa m at i on act i ons )
. I n contr as t , w hen s t at ement s ar e s ubj ectonl yt o a q u a lifie d p riv ileg e , the d e c lar a n t m a ylo se th e p riv ileg e b ym a k in g f a lse sta tem e n ts
m a lic io u s ly o r i n b a d f

a ith
. S .H
. Kre ss & C o . v. S e lf

, 22 A r i z. A pp. 230, 232, 526 P. 2d 754, 75 6 ( 19 74 ). “B ecause absol ute i m m un i ty i m m un i zes absolut el y , i t i s res erved fo r ‘“tho se
s i tuat i ons w her e the publ i c i nt er es t i s s o vi t al and appar ent thati tm andat es compl et e fr eedom of expr es s i on w i thout i nqui ry i nt o a defenda nt ’ s m ot i ves . ”’ ” Sobol , 212 A r i z. 315, ¶ 12, 131 P .3 d a t 4 9 0 , q u o tin gB u rn s v . D a v is , 1 9 6 A ri z. 1 5 5 , ¶ 11 , 9 9 3 P
. 2 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 4 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), quot i ng Supr

y v. B olduc , 2 9 3 A
. 2 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 (N
. H
. 1 9 7 2 ). ¶5 T he Ledvi nas r el yon Selby v. Sa vard , 1 3 4 A riz . 2 2 2 , 6 5 5 P .2 d 3 4 2 (1 9 8 2 ), in
s uppor tof thei rar gum entthatonl ya condi t i onal pr i vi l ege s houl d appl yt o s t at ement s m ade in a c o m p lain t to p o lice . B u t w e a g re e w ith th e C e ra sa n is th a t Selby does notaddr es s the i s s ue thati s pr es ent ed her e. I n Selby , a di s grunt l ed r es or tow nerhad made di s par agi ng al l egat i ons
a bo ut a l i qu or de pa r t ment of fi c i a l a nd ha d c on t a c t e d a D e pa r t ment of Pub l i c Sa fet y(D P S)
o f f ic e r t o re p o rt “ a lle g a tio n s o f [ th e o f f ic ia l’ s ] c ri m in a l co n d u c t o f th e m o s t s e ri o u s n a tu re .” I d. a t 2 2 4 , 6 5 5 P .2 d a t 3 4 4 . O n a p p e a l f ro m a ju d g m e n t a w a rd in g d a m a g e s to th e o f f icia l in h is d e f a m a tio n a c tio n a g a in st th e re so rt o w n e r, th e a p p e llan t o w n e r a ss e rte d th a t h is re p o rt to D PS w as condi t i onal l ypr i vi l eged. O urs upr eme cour t , w i thou t ad d ressi ng w hetheran abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege mi ghtap p ly , n o ted the off i ci al w as a publ i c fi gur e s ubj ectt o the “a ctual
m al i ce” s t andar d of N

ew Y ork Ti m es v. Sul l i van , 3 7 6 U
. S
. 2 5 4 , 2 8 0 , 8 4 S
. C t. 7 1 0 , 7 2 6 (19 6 4 ). B eca us e i thad bee n s how n the defenda nt had publ i s hed t he defamat ory s t at ement s w i th actual5

m al i ce, the pl ai nt i ff ha d “over come” the defe ndant ’ s “condi t i onal pr i vi l ege. ” Selby at225, 655 P. 2d at345. C ons equent l y , the defe ndant coul d notavoi d l i abi l i tyfordefa m at i on ar i s i ng f ro m h is p o lice re p o rt. ¶6 S o m e w h a t m o r e r e l e v a n t is a c a s e c ite d b yn e ith e r p a rt y , Kress . T her e, t he pl ai nt i ff ha d pr evai l ed on a defa m at i on act i on agai ns tan off
- dutypol i ce of

fi cerw or ki ng as
a s ecur i tyguar d, w ho had r eport ed t o l aw enfor cement that the pl ai nt i ff had s t ol en i t ems fr om
a d e p a rtm e n t sto re . O n a p p e a l, th e d e f e n d a n t se c u rityg u a rd a rg u e d h is re p o rt w a s a b so lu tely pr i vi l eged a s s t at ement s m ade bya publ i c off i ceri n the di s char ge of of fi ci al dut i es . D i vi s i on O ne of thi s courthel d thatthe guar d’ s r eport of a cr i m e t o l aw enfor cement“w [as ] pr ot ect ed by a condi t i onal pr i vi l ege” beca us e the guar d had notbeen a ct i ng i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas
a p u b lic o f

f ic e r w h e n h e m a d e th e c o m p la in t. Kress , 22 A r i z. A pp. at232, 526 P. 2d at756. T he courtr ever s ed the def amat i on j udgm entbeca us e the pl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o pl ead a nd p ro v e th e g u a rd h a d m a d e “ th e sta tem e n ts d u rin g th e in v e stig a tio n a n d in th e p o lice re p o rts out of m al i ce or i n the abs ence of good fai th. ” I d. at 233, 526 P. 2d at 757. A l though Kress bear s s om e r es embl ance t o the cas e at hand, w e do not fi nd i t contr ol l i ng or per s u asiv e f or several reas on s. ¶7 F ir s t, Kress re lie d o n a n e a rl ie r D iv is io n O n e c a s e , L o n gv . Me rtz , 2 A r i z. A pp. 2 1 5 , 4 0 7 P .2 d 4 0 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , w h ic h e x a m in e d th e q u e s ti o n o f a b s o lu te v e r s u s q u a li f

ie d im m u n ity i n t erm s of the s t atus and obl i gati o n s o f appoi nt ed publ i c off i ci al s w hos e off

i ci al dut i es
r equi r e them t o m ake r eport s i n the publ i c i nt er es t , a s i tuat i on cl ear l ynotpr es enther e. S e c o n d , as C e ra sa n i p o in ts o u t, A riz o n a ’s c o u rts h a v e con si st entl yaffo rded ab sol ute i m m u n ity6

f o r st a te m e n ts m a d e in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . See G reen A cres Trust , 141 A r i z.
a t 613 , 68 8 P
. 2d at62 1 (noti ng vari ou s sett i ng s i n w hich cou rt s have a pp l i ed ab sol ute pr i vi l ege t o defa m e i n connec t i on w i th j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs )
. T h ir d ly , ther e i s s ubs t ant i al p e rsu a siv e a u th o rity , w h ich w e e x a m in e b e lo w , fo r th e p rin c ip le th a t re p o rts to p o lice sh o u ld b e v iew e d a s re late d to ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s. T h u s, to th e e x ten t Kress and Longa rg u a b ly
s t and for the pr opos i t i on that onl y condi t i onal i m m uni ty appl i es t o ci t i zen c om pl ai nt s t o l aw
e n f o rc e m e n t au th o rities , w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r A riz o n a ju risp ru d e n c e a s w e ll as p u b lic p o licyh a v e sin c e e v o lv e d to a p o in t th a t h a s v iti a ted th a t p re c e p t. ¶8 I n Dr u mm o n d v . S t ahl , 1 2 7 A ri z. 12 2 , 1 2 5 , 6 1 8 P
. 2 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 0 ), D iv isio n O n e o f

th is c o u rt h e ld th a t an a b so lu te r a th e r th a n q u a lifie d p riv ileg e a p p lied to
s t at ement s m ade i n a compl ai ntt o the S t at e B ar of A r i zona al l egi ng unethi cal conductbyan att orney . A l though w hen t he com pl ai nt w as fi l ed, no i nves t i gat i on or pr ocee di ngs had bee n i ns t i tut ed, the courtnot ed thatthe St at e B ar“i s an arm of the A r i zona Supr eme C our t ” and,
as s uch, “ac t s i n a j udi ci al capa ci ty i n deal i ng w i th the conduct of at t orney s . ” Id
. at 126. T he
courtexpl ai ned thatgr ant i ng i m m uni tyforSt at e B ar compl ai nt s w as nece s s ary“bec aus e of
a n ‘o v e rr id in g p u b lic in te re s t’ th a t p e rs o n s s h o u ld s p e a k f re e ly a n d f

e a rl e s s ly in litig a tio n .” Id . a t 1 2 5 , 6 1 8 P .2 d a t 6 1 9 , quot i ng St ew ar tv. Fahey , 14 A r i z. A pp. 149, 150, 481 P. 2d 519, 520 ( 1971)
. Si m i l ar l y , i n A s h to n -B la irv . Me r r ill, 187 A r i z. 315, 317- 18, 928 P. 2d 1244, 1 2 4 6 -4 7 (A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t a n a tto rn e y ’s d e f a m a to ry sta tem e n ts m a d e in
res po nse t o a co m plai nt t o the Stat e B ar w ere shi el ded by absolut e i m m un i ty . In both cases, the courtnot ed thats ect i ons 585 t hr ough 589 of the R es t at ement( Second) of Tort s ( 1977)7

provide an ab sol ute pr i vil ege f or defam at ory s t at em ents m ade in a j ud i ci al proceed i ng , “so l ong as s uch s t at ement s bears om e r el at i ons hi p t o the pr ocee di ngs . ” D r um m ond , 127 A r i z. at126, 618 P. 2d at620. ¶9 M or e re cent l y , i n Sobol , D ivisi o n O n e reac h ed a sim il ar c o n clus ion w ith reg ard t o a compl ai nant t o the A r i zona B oar d of L egal D ocument Pr epar er s , w h o h ad all eged
u n ethica l con d u ct byS o b o l, a d o cu m en t prep are r. T h e co u rt u p h eld th e d ism issal of S o b o l’ s defa m at i on act i on agai ns t the com pl ai nant , fi ndi ng that abs ol ut e i m m uni ty appl i ed. 212 A r i z. 315, ¶ 1 5 , 1 3 1 P. 3d at490. T he courtci t ed the R es t at ement( Second) of Tort s fort he pr i nci pl e t hat cert ai n compl ai nant s s houl d be prot ect ed not onl yfr om ci vi l l i abi l i tybutfr om th e d a n g e r o f

a n u n su c c e ss f

u l civ il ac tio n . N o tin g th a t Dr u mm ondand A sh to n -B la irhad aff or ded abs ol ut e i m m uni tyforcompl ai nt s of att orneym i s conduct , the courtr eas oned:

W e c a n c o n c e iv e o f

n o r e a s o n w h ya p e rso n w h o re p o rts a lleg e d ly u n e th ica l co n d u c t b y a law y e r sh o u ld b e p ro tec ted b ya b so lu te i m m uni tyw hi l e a per s on w ho r eport s al l egedl y unethi cal conductby a ce r t i fi ed l egal documentpr epar ers houl d be s ubj ect ed t o the r i s k of c i v i l l i a b i l i ty. Sobol , 2 1 2 A riz . 3 1 5 , ¶ 1 4 , 1 3 1 P .3 d a t 4 9 0
. T h a t r e a so n in g w o u ld a p p e a r to a p p lye q u a lly her e. W e s i m i l ar l ys ee no r eas on w hya per s on w ho r eport s a cr i m e to p o li ce sh o ul d be af fo rde d an yless p rotec ti o n than a p erso n rep o rt ing ethica l m isco n d u ct byan att o rne yo r a li ce n sed d o cu m en t prep are r. ¶10 B oth D r um m ond and Soboldr ew s uppor tfr om the R es t at ementi n arr i vi ng at th e ir c o n c lu sio n s. In d e e d , in th e a b se n c e o f c lea rlyc o n tro lli n g p re c e d e n t, A riz o n a ’s c o u rts “vi ew [] the R es t at ementas author i tyforr es ol vi ng ques t i ons conce rni ng rul es i n defa m at i on8

cas es . ” B ur ns , 1 9 6 A riz
. 1 5 5 , ¶ 1 9 , 9 9 3 P .2 d a t 1 1 2 6 . T h e R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 5 87 dir ect l yadd res ses the is sue i n thi s case. Itst at es:

A partyt o a p ri vate l i t i gati on or a pri vate pr osecutor . . . is abs ol ut el yp r i vi l eged t o publ i s h defa m at orym att erconce rni ng ano ther i n co m m un i cat i on s pr el i m i nar y t o the pr opos ed j udi ci al pr oceedi ng, ori n the i ns t i t ut i on of ordur i ng the cour s e and a s partof, a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch he parti cipat es , i f the m att erhas s om e r el at i on t o the pr ocee di ng. (Em ph asi s added ). S ect i on 58 8 p rovi des:

A w i tnes s i s abs ol ut el ypr i vi l eged t o publ i s h defa m at orym att er conce r ni ng anotheri n comm uni cat i ons pr el i m i naryt o a pr opos ed j udi ci al pr ocee di ng oras part of a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch he i s t es t i fy i ng, i f i thas so m e rel at i on t o the pr ocee di ng. A nd com m ent ( e) t o § 59 8 st at es:

For m al or i nform al compl ai nt s t o a pr os ecut i ng att orneyorother l aw enfor cem entoffi cerconce rni ng vi ol at i ons of the cr i m i nal l aw ar e abs ol ut el ypr i vi l eged unde rthe rul e s t at ed i n § 587. See a l so W . P a g e K e e to n e t a l., P ro ss e r a n d Ke e to n o n th e L a w o

f T o rts § 1 1 4 , at 8 1 9 -2 0 (5 th ed. 1984) ( “compl ai ntt o a pr os ecut i ng att orneyora magi s tr at e i s t o be r egar ded as an i ni t i al step in a ju d ici al pro ce ed ing ”). ¶11 O th e r ju risd ictio n s a n d c o m m e n tato rs h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t a c o m p lain t to p o lice is th e f

irst ste p in a ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g , a n d c o u rts h a v e a c c o rd in g lya p p lied th e ru le of ab sol ute i m m un i tyi n ad dress i ng rel at ed d efam at i on act i on s.

[ W ] e a d o p tth e ru l e th a ttr e a t s b o th f o r ma l a n d i n f

o r m al compl ai nt s and s t at ement s t o a pr os ecut i ng author i ty as partof th e in iti a l ste p s in a ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g , an d a s s u c h e n tit led to ab so lute im m u n ityfro m an ac ti o n fo r de fa m ati o n . W
. P ross er, T o rts s 1 1 4 a t 7 8 1 (4 th e d . 1 9 7 1 ). T h e sa m e a b so lu te im m u n ityU nt i l r ece nt l y , C al i forni a court s of appe al had d isag r eed a boutthe natur e of the 1 p ri v ile g e a p p lic a b le to a c itiz e n ’s re p o r t t o p o lic e . C om par e W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 1 8 1 C a l. R p tr . 4 2 3 , 4 2 7 -28 (C t. A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) (ab so lute p ri v il eg e) w i th Fenelon v. Su peri or C ou rt , 273 C al
. R ptr . 367, 368- 69 ( C t . A pp. 1990 ) (q u al i fi ed pr i vi l ege)
. I n H ag berg , the C a lifo rn ia Supr eme C our t r es ol ved t hat confl i ct and hel d thats t at ement s m ade t o pol i ce a bouts us pect ed cr i m i nal act i vi tyar e abs ol ut el y pr i vi l eged. A l though H ag bergcons trued C al
. C i v. C ode § 47 i n det erm i ni ng an abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege appl i ed t o ci t i zen c om pl ai nt s , the s ame pol i ci es t hat i nform thats t atut e al s o i nform the comm on l aw rul e. 9 o r p riv ileg e a p p lies to sta tem e n ts m a d e to th e c ityo r c o u n ty att orneyorthos e i nves t i gat i ng a s us pect ed cr i m e. McG r anahan v. D ahar , 4 0 8 A .2 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 8 -2 9 (N .H . 1 9 7 9 ); s ee al s o H agber g v. C al

. Fed. B ank FSB , 8 1 P
. 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (C al. 2 0 0 4 ), Star nes v. I nt ’ lH ar ves t erC o. , 539 N
. E
. 2d 1372, 1 1 3 7 4 -7 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 8 9 ); cf

. H ot tv. Y ar br ough , 245 S. W
. 676, 677 ( T ex. C om m ’ n A pp. 1922) ( l ett er s t o gr and j uryfor eman and countyatt o rneyal l egi ng cr i m i nal vi ol at i on
a b so lu tely p r iv il e g e d ); s ee L a u re n c e H . E lld re d g e , The Law of D ef am at i on § 73, at356 (1 9 7 8 ); 1 A rt h u r B . H a n s o n , L ib e l a n d R e la tedT o rts 8 7 (1 9 6 9 ); R o d n e yA . S m o lla , Law of D ef am at i on § 8
. 0 3 [3 ][c ], at 8-1 2 (19 9 1 ). ¶12 T he C er as ani s fur therar gue thatonl yan abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege f r om ci vi l l i t i gat i on
can a dequat el ypr om ot e the compel l i ng publ i c pol i cyof enc our agi ng the fr ee a nd unhi nder ed
comm uni cat i ons t o l aw enfor cement author i t i es nece s s ary t o fac i l i t at e t he i nves t i gat i on and prosecuti on of cri m es. W e agree that r equ i ri ng al l eged cri m e vict i m s t o rel yon the d efen se of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi n defa m at i on a c t i o n s wou l dh a v e d e tr i m ent al cons equenc es , i ncl udi ng pot ent i al l yperm i t t i ng cr i m i nal defe ndant s t o har as s and i nt i m i dat e vi ct i m s and w i tnes s es
w ho w ou l d t est i fy i n court . T he m ere po ssi bil i ty of r et al i at orydefa m at i on cl ai m s w ou l d als o t end t o di s cour age fr ee and unfet t er ed r eport i ng t o l aw enfor cementauthor i t i es t o as s i s tthe10

det ect i on and pr os ecut i on of cri m i nal act i vi ty . I n D r um m ond , the courtobs erved that appl y i ng a condi t i onal pr i vi l ege

w oul d al l ow the i ns t i tut i on of a c i vi l act i on by the mer e addi t i on o f a n “ a c tu a l m a lice ” a lleg a tio n . T h is w o u ld p e rm it a c iv il act i on agai ns t any one w ho has compl ai ned t o the St at e B arand s ubj ects uch c o m pl ai nantt o the ful l , expens i ve s cope of dis cov eryand l i t i gati on , thu s “chi l l i ng ” the m oti vati on of those w h o b eli ev e the yh av e k n o w ledg e o f im p rop er leg al be h av ior. 1 2 7 A riz . at 1 2 6 , 6 1 8 P .2 d a t 6 2 0 . In th e c o n tex t o f c iti z e n re p o rts to p o lice , C a lifo rn ia
court s have e xpl ai ned:

In o ur vi ew . . . , a com m un i cat i on con cerni ng po ssi b le w r ongdoi ng, m ade t o an offi ci al governm ent al agenc ys uch as a l ocal p o l i c e d e part m ent , and w hi ch comm uni cat i on i s des i gned t o pr om ptact i on by that ent i ty , i s as m uch a partof an “ offi ci al pr ocee di ng” as a comm uni cat i on m ade af t eran off

i ci al in v e s tig a tio n h a s c o m m e n c e d . [ I m ig v. Fer r ar , 1 3 8 C al. R p tr . 540, 543 ( C t . A pp. 1977)
. ] A ft eral l , “[t ] he pol i cyun d erly ing the pr i vi l ege i s t o as s ur e utm os tfr eedom of com m uni cat i on b e tw e e n c iti z e n s a n d p u b lic a u th o rities w h o se r e s p o n sib ili tyit i s t o i nves t i gat e and r emedyw r ongdoi ng. ” [ Id
. ] I n o r d erfor s uch i nves t i gat i on t o b e ef fec t i ve, “ther e mustbe an ope n c h a n n e l o f

c o m m u n ic a tio n b yw h ic h c itiz e n s c a n c a ll . . . a tten tio n to su sp e c ted w ro n g d o in g . T h a t ch a n n e l w o u ld q u ick ly c lo se if its u se su b

jec ted th e u se r to a risk o f liab ili tyf

o r lib e l. A q u a lif ie d p ri v ile g e is in a d e q u a te u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . . . .

. . . . T h e im p o rta n c e o f p ro v id in g to c iti z e n s f re e a n d o p e n a c c e ss to governm ent al agenc i es for the r eport i ng of s us pect ed il l egal a c tiv ityo u tw e ig h s th e o c c a sio n a l h a rm th a t m ig h t b e f a ll a d e f a m e d in d iv id u a l. T h u s th e a b s o lu te p ri v ile g e is e s s e n tia l.” [ K i ng v. B or

ges , 1 0 4 C a l. R p tr . 4 1 4 , 4 1 8 (C t. A p p . 1 9 7 7 ).] H ag berg , 8 1 P .3 d a t 2 5 1 , quot i ng W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 181 C al
. R ptr . 423, 428 ( C t . A pp. 1 9 8 2 ).11

¶13 O th e r c o u rts a s w e ll h a v e f o llo w e d sim ilar r e a s o n in g in a f f o rd in g a b so lu te i m m uni tyt o ci t i zens ’ s t at ement s t o pol i ce, emphasi zi ng the i m por t ance of open
c o m m u n ic a tio n s in c ri m e p re v e n tio n a n d c ri m in a l a p p re h e n s io n . See, e. g. , G en. E l ec. C o.
v. Sar gent , 9 1 6 F .2 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 5 -2 7 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); B or g v. B oas , 2 3 1 F .2 d 7 8 8 , 7 9 4 -9 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 5 6 ); C ut t

s v. A m er . U

ni t ed Li f e I ns . C o. , 5 0 5 S o .2 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 5 (A la. 1 9 8 7 ); Starnes, 5 3 9 N .E .2 d a t 1 3 7 4 -7 5 ; F l ynn v. B oglars ky , 1 2 9 N .W . 6 7 4 , 6 7 6 (M ich . 1 9 1 1 ); H all v. P izza H u t, 3 9 6 N .W .2 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 3 (M ich . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); McG r anahan , 4 0 8 A .2 d a t 1 2 8 -2 9 ; W h ite
v . B a sn e tt , 7 0 0 P .2 d 6 6 6 , 6 6 8 (O k la. C iv . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ); Ho tt , 2 4 5 S .W . at 67 7
. In McG r anahan , the N ew H ampshi r e Supr eme C our texpl ai ned:

T h e law d o e s n o t, an d sh o u ld n o t, allo w r e c o v e ryin to rt b ya ll per s ons acc us ed of c r i m es and notconvi ct ed. T her e i s no guar ant ee i n ours oci etythatonl ygui l ty per s ons w i l l be ac cus ed and arr es t ed. E xcepti n extr eme cas es , for w hi ch mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on or abus e of pr oces s ar e ade quat e r emedi es , a per s on w rongf ull yaccus e d o f a cri m e m ustbear that r i sk, l esttho se w ho s us pectw r ongful ac ti vi tybe i nt i m i dat ed fr om s peaki ng abouti tt o the pr operauthor i t i es for fea r of becomi ng embroi l ed themsel ves i n t he haz ar ds of i nt erm i nabl e l i t i gat i on. 4 0 8 A .2 d a t 1 2 8 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶14 F in a lly , A riz o n a ’s a d o p tio n o f th e V ictim ’s B ill o f R ig h ts s ig n if

ica n tlya id s in gui di ng ourj ud g m en t. I n amendi ng ours t at e cons t i tut i on, the peopl e of A r i zona
em ph at i cal l yi ntended that cr i m e vict i m s “be free from i nti m i dati on , harass m ent, or abuse th r o u g h o u t t h e c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e p r o c e s s , ” a s we l l a s b e a b l e t o “ r e f u s e a n i n t e r v i e w, d ep o sit ion , o r oth er d isc overyr eque sts bythe d ef en d an t” or p erso n s ac ti n g o n the d ef en d an t’ s behal f. A r i z. C ons t . art . II, § 2
. 1 (A )( 1) and ( 5)
. T he col l at er al l i t i gat i on of def amat i onW e re c o g n ize th a t th is c a se tu rn s, in p a rt, o n a n a ss e ss m e n t o f c o m p e tin g p u b lic 2 pol i cyconce r ns thatar e bests ui t ed t o the l egi s l at i ve and pol i t i cal pr oces s . B utw e ar e fa ced w ith h a v in g to m a k e th a t as se ss m e n t to re so lv e th is c a se , an d , as n o ted a b o v e , d o so w ith d e f e re n c e to th e stro n g in d ica tio n o f A riz o n a ’s p u b lic p o licy e m b o d ied in th e V ictim ’s B ill of R i gh t s. 12 cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om cr i m e vi ct i m s ’ r eport s t o pol i ce w oul d contr avene thos e pr ovi s i ons and ther ebyvi t i at e A r i zona’ s s t at ed publ i c pol i cy . I ndeed, i n thi s cas e, the L edvi nas i ns t i tut ed their de fa m ati o n ac ti o n ag ains t th e a ll eg ed v ict im an d m ain w itn ess in the crim inal ca se, M r. C er as ani , w hi l e the cr i m i nal char ge and tr i al agai ns tM art i al L edvi na w er e s ti l l pendi ng. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e p u tativ e c rim e v ic tim s in A riz o n a a re e n tit led to a b so lu te i m m uni tyw hen theycompl ai n t o pol i ce. ¶15 W e ac know l edge the Ledvi nas ’ l e g i t i ma t e c o n c e rn th a tabs ol ut e i m m uni tym ay
o n o cc asio n w o rk to p rotec t th o se w h o m ak e inten ti o n all y fa lse an d m ali ciou s d ef am atory
s t at ement s t o pol i ce. W e al s o not e t he cas e l aw the Ledvi nas ci t e fr om j ur i s di ct i ons thathave lim ite d s u c h p ro te c tio n to o n ly q u a lif ie d im m u n i t y. See, e. g. , Fr i dovi ch v. Fr i dovi ch , 598 So. 2d 6 5, 69 ( Fl a. 1992) , and C aldorv. B ow den , 625 A
. 2d 959, 969 ( M d. 1993)
. B ut , as di s cus s ed above , w e bel i eve the pr ece dentand publ i c pol i cyof A r i zona s tr ike a di ffe r ent bal ance thatoffe r s gr eat er pr ot ect i on t o vi ct i m s of cr i m es as w el l as thos e w ho w i tnes s and
r eport them. M or eover , ther e ar e saf eguar ds forthe s ubj ect s of m al i ci ous acc us at i ons , and 2 di s i nce n ti ves form aki ng s curr i l ous al l egat i ons t o pol i ce. I n A r i zona, i ti s a cl as s one
m i s demeanorforanyper s on t o know i ngl ym ake afal s e r eportt o a l aw enfor cementagenc y
o r p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n . A .R .S . § 1 3 -2 9 0 7 .0 1
. A n d a w itn e ss w h o m a d e f a lse sta tem e n ts in
cou rt w ou l d face the ri sk of perj ury charges. A
. R
. S
. § 13 -2702
. A fal se r epo rt er coul d als o13

f a c e c iv il lia b ility f

o r a b u s e o f

p ro c e s s a n d m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . See Si er r a M adr e D ev. Inc
. v. V i a E ntr ada Tow nhous es A s s ’ n, 2 0 Ar i z . App
. 5 5 0 , 5 5 4 , 5 1 4 P. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7 ( 1 9 7 3) ( abs ol ut e pr i vi l ege fordefa m at orys t at ement s i n j udi ci al pl eadi ngs not“i nt ended t o aff ectt he
v ali d ityo f a n yclaim fo r reli ef b ase d o n m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n o r ab u se o f p roc ess” ). D i s posi t i on ¶16 B eca us e w e concl ude t he tr i al courtcorr ect l yfound M r . C er as ani w as ent i t l ed to an ab so lute p ri v il eg e resp ec ti n g h is rep o rt to the p o li ce , the tri al co u rt ’s en tryo f su m m ary j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng the Ledvi nas ’ defa m at i on act i on i s aff i r m ed.

____________________________________ PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge