BY PREPARING AN INTENTIONALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING AFFIDAVIT. BECAUSE BEVERS MADE INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS STATEMENTS IN HER ARREST AFFIDAVIT, SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED DELOACH'S CIVIL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
A SIMILAR SITUATION OCCURRED IN ROBINSON V. MARUFFI, 895 F.2D 649, 655 (10TH CIR. 1990) WHEN POLICE OFFICERS PURPOSEFULLY CONCEALED AND MISREPRESENTED MATERIAL FACTS TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHICH MAY HAVE INFLUENCED HIS DECISION TO PROSECUTE.
UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW, YOU WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM A CLAIM FOR LIBEL OR SLANDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH 12 O.S. 1443.1 (1981) IF THE STATEMENT IS MADE IN THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTY. THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROTECT FALSE STATEMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE STATEMENTS ARE SHOWN TO BE MERELY STATEMENTS OF OPINION AND NOT STATEMENTS OF FACT, SUCH STATEMENTS ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING FALSE AND ARE NOT ACTIONABLE IF A REASONABLE READER OF THE STATEMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE WORDS AS IMPUTING A CRIMINAL ACT. HENNESSEE V. MATHIS, 737 P.2D 958, 960 (OKLA. APP. 1987).
ALTHOUGH I, OF COURSE, CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT A PARTY MAY NOT ATTEMPT TO HOLD YOUR OFFICE CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH REPORTING, IT APPEARS THAT IF YOUR OFFICE ACTS IN GOOD FAITH, AS I AM SURE YOU WOULD DO, YOU SHOULD INCUR NO LIABILITY. I CAUTION YOU TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS CONTAINED TO REPORTING THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS WARRANTED AND TO REFRAIN FROM DRAWING CONCLUSIONS AS TO LIABILITY.
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY WEIGH HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF REPORTING INSTANCES OF SUSPECTED ABUSE OR INADEQUACY. SUCH DISCLOSURE WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
(SANDRA D. HOWARD)