Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-10802-RWZ.
March 14, 2002
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On May 5, 1997 the Townsend Police received a report that plaintiff, who was taking prescription medications, had been drinking since the previous day, was acting irrationally, and was in the family home with his 17 year old son, two loaded weapons and 400 rounds of ammunition. Defendant, William May, the Chief of Police, alerted the State Police who with officers of the Townsend police arrested plaintiff and took him to a psychiatric hospital for examination. The incident was reported in some detail in the Townsend and Worcester newspapers. Plaintiff, a Sergeant Major at Ft. Devens, sued the police chief, the newspapers, and the reporters who had written the story for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sued the police chief and the Town for violations of his civil rights under federal and state law. I earlier allowed the motions for summary judgment of the newspaper defendants and entered separate judgments for them. Before me now is the motion for summary judgment of the police chief and the Town of Townsend.
Count One of the Amended Complaint charges Chief May with defamation. Specifically, plaintiff challenges the following statements by May to the press: that "it was his belief that [plaintiff] was suicidal;" that plaintiff "was a retired member of the Army Special Forces of Green Berets and has been trained as a sniper;" and that he "threatened to kill himself and was reported to be armed with several large caliber weapons." Plaintiff argues that whether he was suicidal, whether he was a member of the Green Berets trained as a sniper, and whether he was armed and had threatened to kill himself are questions of disputed fact to be decided by a jury. However, plaintiff has taken May's comments out of context. Reading the newspaper articles in their entirety, it is clear that May was simply reporting information he received in his official capacity and which served as the basis for the arrest. He makes clear that the information was derived from witness statements, and qualifies his recitation of facts with phrases like "according to witnesses," "it was [my] belief," and "it was reported." While plaintiff challenges the veracity of the underlying information May gathered from witnesses, he does not refute that these facts were reported to May, or that they were the premise for his conduct. Since there has been no allegation of falsity as to this, the essence of May's statements, Count One fails.
Count Two alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress by Chief May. To prevail on this claim, the plaintiff must show (1) that May intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct, (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) that May's actions caused the plaintiff's distress, and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe. Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-145 (1976). As a matter of law, Chief May's conduct was not extreme and outrageous and this claim fails.
Count Three of the Amended Complaint, the only count against Chief May "in his supervisory capacity for Townsend, Massachusetts" and the Town, alleges violations of plaintiff's constitutional rights "pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 12, Section 11H, I — 42 U.S. Code 1983." While not a model of clarity, Count Three appears to incorporate four subsidiary claims: (1) that May sent defamatory statements to other state law enforcement agencies; (2) that he and Townsend Police conducted illegal searches of plaintiff's home, car, office, barracks; (3) that May made certain defamatory statements to the press; and (4) that May seized all of plaintiff's guns without a warrant and has not returned them. The complaint further asserts the existence of some official policy of written rules and unwritten plans of action.
The first and third allegations do not state claims cognizable under the Civil Rights statutes as they are not based on the alleged violations of any rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is, plaintiff has no constitutional right not to be defamed. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 700-01 (1976).
The second and fourth allegations do assert the violation of rights within the Fourth Amendment which prohibits illegal searches and seizures. However, they fail in light of the facts. As to the second allegation, the evidence is undisputed that the house was the residence of both plaintiff and his wife and that the latter caused the police to be called and invited to remove plaintiff and the guns. Under these circumstances, the police entered with consent. Insofar as plaintiff complains about a search of his place at the barracks, he does not dispute that that search was conducted entirely by state police officers who are not parties here. Finally, insofar as plaintiff complains about "official policy," the complaint is silent as to the nature of such policy or of its relevance to the events in question. For these reasons the motion for summary judgment is allowed.
Judgment may be entered for Chief May and the Town of Townsend.