Delia v. Berkey

• Decision Date: 19 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 150,150
• Citation: 41 Md.App. 47,395 A.2d 1189
• Parties: Gregory E. DELIA v. Barry R. BERKEY.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 47

41 Md.App. 47

395 A.2d 1189

Gregory E. DELIA v. Barry R. BERKEY.

No. 150.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 19, 1978.

Robert W. King, Adelphi, with whom was Arthur M. Kravetz, Adelphi, on the brief, for appellant.

William A. Ehrmantraut, Rockville, with whom were Donahue & Ehrmantraut, Rockville, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MOORE, MELVIN and LISS, JJ.

LISS, Judge.

It was the Bard who best expressed the wounds that slander does inflict. He said:

Slander,

Whose edge is sharper than the sword,

whose tongue

Outvenoms all the worms of Nile,

whose breath

Rides on the posting winds and doth

belie

All corners of the world. ¹

Appellant, Gregory E. Delia, allegedly wounded by a defamation of his character by Barry R. Berkey, appellee, appeals from the ruling of Judge Jacob S. Levin of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, who granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellee in the defamation action filed by the appellant.

On September 25, 1976, Gregory E. Delia, a police officer in the Prince George's County Police Department, was on uniformed patrol at about 10:15 P.M., operating in the southbound lane of Interstate 495, when he observed an automobile being operated in excess of the posted speed limit. The automobile was being driven by Dr. Barry R. Berkey, a certified psychiatrist with offices in Virginia; Dr. Berkey's wife and son were passengers. The appellant intercepted the appellee and required him to pull his car to the shoulder of the road. The officer's car was then positioned to the rear of Dr. Berkey's, with the patrol car's two high intensity lights and a spotlight being directed toward the Berkey car.

The officer stated that he informed Dr. Berkey that he was going 70 miles an hour in a 55 mile zone and would be issued a ticket for the violation. The doctor requested the officer to turn off his high intensity lights but the latter refused to do so, contending that they were needed for his own safety and that of Dr. Berkey and his passengers. The officer then directed the doctor to remain with his own car while he prepared the ticket in the patrol car. After doing so, the officer presented the ticket to the appellee, requesting that he sign it and advising him that his signature on the ticket was not an admission of guilt but represented a promise by the appellee to appear in court or pay the fine required by the violation. Dr. Berkey again asked that the lights on the patrol car be extinguished, and the officer again refused. The doctor inquired as to the candlepower of the bright lights and upon being advised by the officer that he did not know, the doctor wrote, "does not know" on the summons book. Officer Delia advised Dr. Berkey that if he did not sign the summons he would be arrested. The doctor asked for the officer's name and badge number and was advised that they were on the summons. Dr. Berkey then asked, "Do my wife and I look like criminals?", and the officer replied, "I do not know what a criminal looks like." The doctor then signed the summons, was handed his ticket, and drove off.

Five days after the incident, Chief John Rhodes of the Prince George's County Police Department received the following letter from Dr. Berkey:

Dear Chief Rhoades:

This is to request an investigation on Private Gregory Delia. The reason for this request has to do with the officer's behavior when he stopped my car by signalling with lights flashing from his patrol car. He asked for my license and automobile registration but gave me No reason (until asked); he had high power spot lights directed at my car and upon request, he refused to deflect or turn them off. After writing up the summons, he Refused to repeat his inaudible instructions and insisted I sign the summons immediately or that he would "take me in." Private Delia kept the high powered lights directed into my wife's eyes, my twelve year old son's eyes and my own while he kept his back toward the beam. (I couldn't identify Private Delia if my life depended on it because of the blinding light).

I regard his behavior as abnormally cruel and inhumane, rude and insensitive, threatening and punitive. I neither look nor behave like a fugitive, but I, as well as my wife and son, were treated by Private Delia as such.

Partly because of my professional background and training, I question if this young officer is mentally deranged, if he is psychopathic and/or pathologically sadistic. This letter is to formally request a mental evaluation of Private Delia.

My speedometer read 60 mph (not 70 as I was told) and I had been maintaining this speed where safe, since leaving Salisbury, Md.

I shall look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Barry R. Berkey, M.D.

cc: The Honorable James Magruder Rea

Cc: Mr. Darryl L. Wyland, Esq. ²

It was this letter which represented the gravamen of the first count of the second amended declaration filed by the appellant in which he sought damages for libel from the appellee.

As a result of the letter, the Prince George's County Police Department directed one of its representatives to communicate with Dr. Berkey to investigate his complaint. In the course of a telephone conversation with the investigator, Dr. Berkey characterized Officer Delia as having "a real emotional problem" and being "abnormally cruel and inhumane, rude and insensitive, threatening and punitive". From the officer's refusal to turn out his high intensity lights and from his conduct at the traffic stop scene, the doctor concluded that Delia was "mentally deranged, psychopathic and/or pathologically sadistic." This conversation was the basis of Officer Delia's claim for damages for slander in the second count of his second amended declaration.

The appellee filed an affidavit, a deposition of the appellant, and a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the appellant was a public official as a matter of law and that in order to recover, the public official was required to prove actual malice on the part of the appellee. The appellee also asserted that actual malice is defined at law as "a knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth." Appellee further alleged that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in regard to the malice issue, and that he was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellant filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment and after a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. It is from that action that this appeal is taken.

The sole issue to be determined in the case Sub judice is whether the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. We think it did err and shall reverse.

The Court of Appeals on numerous occasions has stated that the function of the summary judgment procedure is not to try the case or decide the issues of fact raised; it is merely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried, and if there is none to cause judgment to be issued accordingly. Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437, 298 A.2d 156 (1972); Broadwater v. Arch, 267 Md. 329, 297 A.2d 671 (1972); Greenwell v. American Guaranty Corp., 262 Md. 102, 277 A.2d 70 (1971).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and even if it is found unlikely that the party opposing the motion will prevail at trial, this is insufficient to authorize a summary judgment against him. Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 261 F.Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y.1966); Merchants Mortgage v. Lubow, 275 Md. 208, 339 A.2d 664 (1975).

The Court of Appeals has held that a police officer when acting within the scope of his law enforcement function is a "public official." Robinson v. Board of County Commissioners, 262 Md. 342, 278 A.2d 71 (1971); Harris v Mayor of Baltimore, 151 Md. 11, 133 A. 888 (1926). We have followed these holdings in the very recent case of Karangelen v. Snyder, Md.App., 391 A.2d 474 (1978). Accordingly, the test to be applied in determining the governing legal principles in this case is the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), which held that public officials may sue for libel only when they can demonstrate that the alleged libel was made with "actual malice," which is defined to mean publication of false statements with actual knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964), the Court refined its standard, stating that "only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions."

New York Times, supra, and its progeny impose a heavy burden on the public official or public figure who seeks redress for an alleged defamation. The defamed public official or public figure must prove not only that the publication was false but that it was knowingly so or was circulated with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). The procedural effect of New York Times was a shifting of the burden of proof in cases involving alleged defamation of public officials or public figures. We said in Kapiloff v. Dunn, 27 Md.App. 514, 530, 343 A.2d 251, 262 (1975):

In order to protect the interest of the First Amendment in the free dissemination of information concerning the conduct of a public official or public figure, the Supreme Court shifted that burden. It is now incumbent upon the public official or public figure plaintiff to prove that the statements concerning his conduct were false, and that they were published with actual malice.

The New York Times or the so called "constitutional malice" doctrine focuses primarily on the...