Opinion ID: 1822312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Police Reports

Text: In January 1999, Langeslag reported to the police that Eddy was scalping Minnesota Vikings tickets. Langeslag testified that KYMN sold Vikings tickets in excess of their value and claim[ed] to donate the proceeds to charity. [5] While Eddy admitted to auctioning Vikings tickets over the radio for a price in excess of their face value, he maintained that the proceeds were used for charitable purposes. KYMN had been auctioning items for charity for over 25 years. Langeslag kept the books for these auctions and was aware that the proceeds went to charities. After a brief investigation, the police took no further action. The second incident took place on January 20, 1999 when Eddy met with Langeslag in his office to ascertain why she had reported him for scalping. Both parties taped the ensuing conversation. Eddy sat behind his desk. Langeslag sat across from him. The office door was located directly behind Langeslag; it was closed but unlocked. During the conversation Langeslag declared that she was afraid of Eddy and stated several times that she wanted to leave the office. Eddy never indicated that Langeslag was not free to leave; but he did request that she stay. Langeslag called 911 and told the police I need an officer out to the at KYMN Radio station as soon as possible, please.    I want to leave and my employer, who's Wayne Eddy, won't let me do that. Yes. I want to leave. Langeslag admitted that Eddy did not physically prevent her from leaving his office. Nevertheless, she testified that I really was afraid that I would be hurt, I didn't know what [Eddy] was going to do and as long as I kept    talking and asking to leave, I felt I had a chance to get out of this without anything worse happening. Shortly after calling the police, Langeslag left Eddy's office and the KYMN building before the police arrived. The police responded to the 911 call, and listened to the tape of the conversation, but took no further action. It was after this incident that Langeslag began working exclusively from home. Langeslag argues that neither of these police reports rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct because they were not false. The court of appeals concluded that Langeslag knew that the scalping allegations were baseless [6] and that Eddy did not prevent Langeslag from leaving his office. Although the court of appeals thereby determined that both of Langeslag's police reports were false, we need not determine whether Langeslag's police reports were false in our analysis. Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct that is utterly intolerable to the civilized community. Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 439 (citation omitted). To prevent fictitious and speculative claims we limit this tort to cases involving particularly egregious facts. Id. Langeslag reported to the police that Eddy was scalping tickets, and that Eddy would not allow her to leave his office. Even assuming these reports were false and Langeslag knew it, this conduct does not rise to the level of outrage that is utterly intolerable to the civilized community. Id. Our conclusion is buttressed by decisions in other jurisdictions reaching similar conclusions. Fuller v. Local Union No. 106, 567 N.W.2d 419, 423 (Iowa 1997) (concluding that the defendant did not engage in extreme and outrageous conduct when he falsely reported to the police that the plaintiff was driving while intoxicated); Holland v. Sebunya, 759 A.2d 205, 212 (Me.2000) (stating that calling the police and having the plaintiff physically removed from a meeting does not constitute extreme and outrageous behavior, even if the removal was not warranted). Eddy, however, argues that filing false police reports is analogous to an attempt to extort money by a threat of arrest, which is conduct the Restatement classifies as extreme and outrageous. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. e (1965). We disagree; Eddy mischaracterizes the Restatement. Under comment e, a police officer's attempt to extort money from a person by threatening arrest is extreme and outrageous conduct because the police officer is in a position of authority over the person. Id. Comment e describes a situation where extreme and outrageous conduct arises because the actor is in a position of authority. Id. The facts of this case are distinguishable. Eddy, the party claiming emotional distress, as Langeslag's employer was in a position of authority over Langeslag. Langeslag had no authority or power over Eddy. Moreover, there is no evidence supporting the allegations that the police reports were made in an attempt to extort money. Thus, Eddy failed to satisfy the high threshold standard of proof for a jury determination of his tort claim. Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 439. Consequently, the district court erred in submitting this claim to the jury.