Question

Lydia Hagberg went to her bank, California Federal Bank, FSB, to cash a check made out to her by Smith Barney (SB), an investment services firm. Nolene Showalter, a bank employee, suspected that the check was counterfeit. Showalter called SB and was told that the check was not valid. As she phoned the police, Gary Wood, a bank security officer, contacted SB again and was informed that its earlier state3ment was "erroneous" and that the check was valid. Meanwhile, a police officer arrived, drew Hagberg away from the teller’s window, spread her legs, patted her down, and handcuffed her. The officer searched her purse, asked her whether she had any weapons and whether she was driving a stolen vehicle, and arrested her. Hagberg filed a suit in a California state court against the bank and others, alleging slander.
Required:
Should the absolute privilege for communications made in judicial or other official proceedings apply to statements made when a citizen contracts the police to report suspected criminal activity? Explain fully why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer:

Yes the absolute privilege for communications made in judicial or other official proceedings apply to statements made when a citizen contracts the police to report suspected criminal activity

Explanation:

Absolute priviledge for communication is the provision that covers a person from legal action on grounds of defamation for statements made. Under certain circumstances a person can make defamatory statements and be immune from legal action.

In this scenario Lydia Harberg went to California Federal Bank to cash a check that was suspected to be fake.

Nolene Showalter contacted SB to confirm. Based on the information provided at that time, the check was confirmed to be fake. The implication was that a fraud was being perpetrated.

So his action of calling the police is justified. SB only verified they gave out wrong information the first time