Cornelius v. State of Vermont , 634

- 10

- 16 Wncv (Teachout, J., Aug. 14, 2017)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 634

- 10

- 16 Wncv

GARRETT M. CORNELIUS

Plaintiff

v.

THE STATE OF VERMONT

Defendant s

DECISION

The State’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Garre tt M. Cornelius claims that a State employee, Carl B. Davis, gave

otherwise nonpublic Officer Safety Bulletins produced by the Vermont Intelligence Center

(VIC), part of the Department of Public Safety

, to a local media outlet, which published their

conten t. The thrust of the Bulletins is that Mr. Cornelius’s behavior had become bizarre,

paranoid, and threatening and any officers having contact with him should exercise special

caution. He claims that the representations in the Bulletins a re false and offe nsive and harmed

him when they were given to the media and published to the public

. He characterizes his claims

as invasion of privacy (false light) and fraudulent deceit. The State, the only defendant, has filed

a motion for summary judgment to which Mr . Cornelius has not responded despite an

enlargement of time for him to do so. The State’s motion must be granted.

The VIC collects public safety information and disseminates it “in the form of Officer

Safety Bulletins to federal, state, county, and mun icipal law enforcement officers, and to select

government officials.” Affidavit of Lieutenant Kevin Lane ¶ 5. According to the VIC’s privacy

policy, the bulletins are distributed only for public safety or prosecut orial purposes to those with

official public safety duties. Id . ¶¶ 10, 12. They contain a warning: “Law Enforcement Sensitive

/ For Official Use Only.” Id . ¶ 12. The VIC did not release the bulletins at issue in this case

publicly or to the media and did not authoriz e anyone else to do that. Id . ¶¶ 13

– 14.

Someone apparently did, however. The newspaper article on Mr. Cornelius incorporated

the content of the Bulletins extensively.

Mr. Cornelius alleges in the c omplaint that Mr. Davis did it. Mr. Davis has s w orn

, however, in his affidavit that h e had nothing to do with the production of the Bulletins or their

delivery to the media. Mr. Garrett has come forward with no evidence to the contrary or

disputing this fact in any way. He also has come forward with no ev idence that any agent of the

State did it, and numerous non

- State actors properly had access to the Bulletins.

The false light claim is contingent on the publicity the Bulletins received in the media

and thus from whom the media obtained them. There is no evidence that Mr. Davis or any other2

State actor had anything to do with it. The State is entitled to summary judgment on the false

light claim on this basis, and the court need not address the other bases urged by the State.

It is unclear how the circumstances of this case could form the basis for either a fraud or

deceit claim, which generally would require some transaction between the State and Mr.

Cornelius, an intentional misrepresentation, and reliance on that misrepresentation by Mr.

Cornelius to his detriment. In any event, the State retains sovereign immunity to claims of

misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 5601 (e)(6). It thus is entitled to

summary judgment on this claim.

ORDER

For the foregoing reason s, the State’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 14th day of August 201 7

.

_____________________________ Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge