SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege?

Some of our anti-SLAPP cases are breaking new legal ground through some very interesting fact patterns. Penal Code section 11172 You are probably aware that certain professionals are required to report any child abuse situation of which they become aware. Penal Code section 11172 was created in order to afford those mandated reporters immunity against defamation claims potentially arising from their reports. But that same statute includes the following wording as regards persons who are not mandated reporters: Any other person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect shall not incur civil or criminal liability as a result of any report authorized by this article unless it can be proven that a false report was made and the person knew that the report was false or was made with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report, and any person who makes a report of child abuse or neglect known to be false or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report is liable for any damages caused. But hold on Maude. Civil Code 47 and Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 both afford what has always been held to be an absolute privilege for reports to the police. Does Penal Code section 11172 carve out an exception? Listen to Episode 28 for the answer. Can an attorney sue for malicious prosecution based on a fee arbitration? Ahhh, the benefits of hindsight. Episode 28 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast was recorded almost a year ago, but I never got around to editing and posting it. In addition to reporting on our recent victories at that time, it included the tale of an anti-SLAPP motion that had not gone in our favor, and was still up on appeal. I promised at the time to report on the results of the appeal. [Spoiler alert: We won on appeal and the anti-SLAPP motion was granted.] As I was editing the podcast today, I was struck by the fact that it seemed to come from another era; like finding a journal entry where you referred to stopping at a pay phone or expressed how much you liked your Angel Flight pants. I discuss how I traveled to San Francisco to argue the case to the Court of Appeal. Can you imagine? Actual, face-to-face argument to the court? What an archaic notion. In the next episode of the California SLAPP Law Podcast I will report on the opinion by the Court of Appeal, but if you can’t wait, you can read all about it on the California SLAPP Law website . You’ve got to know when to fold them . . . Finally, I tell the tale of a plaintiff who just did not know when to fold them . . . know when to walk away . . . know when to run. We defeated her case with an anti-SLAPP motion. It was apparent each step of the way that her counsel just did not know the law in this area. Ever helpful, we explained each step of the way what we were going to do if he proceeded with his plans, and what it would cost his client. After spending probably tens of thousands of dollars in activities we advised against, Plaintiff had to finally pay the piper. The post SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege? appeared first on California SLAPP Law .

You can listen to SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege? online on Radio and Podcast. Open the player on this page to stream the available audio.

SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege? is an episode from California SLAPP Law by Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney.

This episode is 21:05 long.

This episode was published on Mar 14, 2021.

Yes. Use the heart button on the episode page to add it to your favorite episodes list.

Yes. This page shows related episodes from California SLAPP Law when more episodes are available from the podcast feed.