WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to
hear an appeal from a former prosecutor who authorized a warrant to search a
student's home and seize his computer while investigating an accusation
that he had violated Colorado's criminal libel statute.
The investigation began in 2003, when Northern Colorado University
Professor Junius Peake alleged that Thomas Mink’s online journal, The
Howling Pig, published doctored photos and parody columns defaming him.
This prompted Ward County prosecutor Susan Knox to issue a warrant.
Police then told Mink’s attorney they were going to charge Mink under
the state’s criminal libel law, which makes it a criminal offense to
publish maliciously false, damaging information about someone who is not a
public figure. Mink ultimately was not charged.
Criminal libel laws stand in contrast to civil libel statutes, which exist
in all 50 states and allow individuals to sue in civil court for damages caused
by defamatory statements. Most states do not have criminal libel statutes; Utah, for example,
repealed its law last year.
In 2004, Mink filed a lawsuit arguing that the criminal libel law, and the
investigation he endured after being accused of breaking it, violated the
Constitution's protections for free speech. He also filed a claim for
damages against Knox based on her role in reviewing the application for a search
warrant. The federal district court refused to address the constitutionality of
the criminal libel statute, ruling that, because Mink never was charged with the
crime, he had no standing to contest it. Mink unsuccessfully appealed this
decision to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Student Press Law
center filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mink's Constitutional
argument.
The appellate court, however, also ruled that Mink might be able to
continue his suit against Knox and be entitled to damages if Mink can prove that
Knox is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects most public officials from being personally
sued for actions that are part of their official duties. Prosecutors acting as
advocates for the state qualify for absolute immunity, a stronger form of
protection. The 10th Circuit ruled that Knox did not act as an advocate for the
state when issuing the warrant, and thus at most had qualified immunity. Knox
argued in her appeal that she was entitled to absolute immunity, but the Supreme
Court declined to hear the case.
The case now returns to the U.S. District Court in Denver. According to
the 10th Circuit decision, Knox can prove she is immune either by showing that
probable cause existed to justify the warrant or that it was unclear how
previous Supreme Court cases related to the criminal libel statute.
By A. Matthew Deal, SPLC staff writer
