Opinion ID: 1842526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements made to law enforcement officers.

Text: As to statements made to law enforcement officers, the Wisconsin rule is that such statements ... fall within the ambit of conditionally privileged statements, provided, however, that the damaging remarks are made in good faith without malice.... [14] The purpose of the conversation with the law enforcement officer is the important consideration. It is the clear duty of citizens to give to the police or other law enforcement officers such information as they may have respecting crimes which have been committed. However, not all conversations with law enforcement officers are for the purposes of apprehension or conviction of one who has committed a crime. In Lisowski, this court was ... not convinced that the jury would have found the defamatory remarks to have been made in good faith for the purpose of instituting criminal proceedings. [15] In an earlier case cited in Lisowski, this court found that the defendant did not contract the chief of police in order to institute criminal proceedings, but rather to embarrass the plaintiff at his place of employment, and concluded, The occasion was privileged, but the conversation was not. [16] For our purposes here, it is enough to note that statements made by citizens to law enforcement officers have been given conditional, not absolute, privilege.