Date of Examination: December 13, 1991 Professor Pielemeier
CODE OF CONDUCT
Violations of the Code of Conduct include: (1) unauthorized con- versation among students concerning the examination; (2) giving, receiving, or soliciting unauthorized aid; (3) using materials which are not specifically permitted by the written examination instruction; (4) exceeding the examination time limit; or (5) any other dishonest conduct in connection with the examination.
INSTRUCTIONS
a. This examination consists of two questions. The recommended time for Question I is 30 minutes and the recommended time for Question II is 90 minutes. The 90 minute recommended time for Question II is intended to give you a decent amount of time to think about and organize your answer before you begin writing. You are encouraged to spend some time doing so, as the question raises a number of issues.
b. Discuss all issues reasonably raised by each question, even though your resolution of one issue may seem to render the others moot.
The Children's Television Act of 1990 was enacted to encourage television broadcasters to serve the needs of children more extensively in their programming. To do so, the Act provides that in considering licensing renewals, the Federal Communications Commission "shall consider the extent to which the licensee has served the educational and informational needs of children through the licensee's overall programming."
The first license renewals that will be subject to this Act will be considered in 1992. Assume that in one of these renewal proceedings, the F.C.C. determines that a television broadcaster has totally failed to program material that serves the needs of children, and denies renewal of the license on this basis. Also assume that the broadcaster appeals the denial on the ground that the above aspect of the Act and the denial of renewal violate the first amendment to the United States Constitution.
Discuss arguments that might be made on both sides of this issue, and state how you believe the issue should be resolved, and why.
Kenneth Shultz is a police officer in the City of Allenville. Rosanne, his wife, is a "Child Welfare Worker" for the City. In this job, she makes determinations of whether children in foster homes are receiving appropriate care and, on occasion, whether they should be moved out of a home and into another.
In the course of an argument between them in their home in January 1991, Kenneth repeatedly struck Rosanne. Rosanne called the Allenville police. Two officers responded and prepared a standard "offense/incident report," which consists of a "Face Sheet" and "Supplemental Statements." Under the applicable law, the "Face Sheet" is a public document available to anyone who wishes to review the police files. The "Supplemental Statements," however, are deemed confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone outside the police department or City Attorney's office absent a court order.
The "Face Sheet" of the report stated that Rosanne Shultz had reported a domestic disturbance, that two police officers had responded, and that Rosanne had left the home.
In the meantime, Rosanne drove to the police station and was interviewed. The officers who interviewed her prepared a "Supplemental Statement" and made it part of the file. The Supplemental Statement reflected that Rosanne stated her husband had beaten her before and he had refused counselling. It also noted that the police told her she had the options of filing criminal charges, requesting a "protection from abuse order," or initiating police department disciplinary action against Kenneth, and that she stated "I don't think it would do any good--you guys are such friends with Ken," and that she did not wish to pursue any of those options. It also noted that Rosanne had visible physical injuries, that she did not wish to return home that evening, and that she was permitted to spend the night in the shift commander's office.
Police Chief Stevens later added a second Supplemental Statement to the file. It stated that he had spoken to Kenneth about the incident, that Kenneth had stated he thought Rosanne was having an affair with another man, their marriage was in trouble, and that they both had scheduled an appointment with a marriage counselor.
No action was taken against Kenneth as a result of this incident.
Shortly after the incident, Kenneth was named "Officer of the Year" by Chief Stevens. Several months later, as part of "Respect for Law Week," press releases and photos of Kenneth were sent out by the police department, and a dinner and official ceremony were held in his honor as "Officer of the Year." The Call, a local newspaper, published a story and photo on this honor.
Terry Mitch is a reporter for The Call who was primarily assigned to do stories on criminal arrests and the like. When the story on Kenneth's "Officer of the Year" honor was published, Mitch vaguely recalled seeing the "Face Sheet" about the domestic disturbance and became interested in investigating the incident further.
Mitch requested full access to the file on the incident, but the police told him he could only have access to the "Face Sheet." However, Mitch persuaded an acquaintance on the police force to surreptitiously give him copies of the "Supplemental Statements." (Assume it is neither clear just how this "persuasion" came about nor who the "acquaintance" was, as Mitch has consistently refused to reveal this information to anyone.)
Mitch then interviewed Chief Stevens about the incident, asking why it wasn't investigated more fully and how the Chief could name Kenneth "Officer of the Year" in light of the incident. Chief Stevens initially denied any knowledge of the incident. When Mitch confronted him with the "Supplemental Statements" (one of which had been prepared by the Chief), Stevens accused Mitch of "stealing" them and refused further comment on the incident, except for the statement, "You know, we get so many of these reports on spousal abuse and I think sometimes people fake it. Women tear their clothes up and hit their head against the wall and then claim they were beaten."
After this "interview" with Chief Stevens, Mitch wrote a story which appeared in the next morning's Call with the headline "Police Didn't Follow Up Assault Complaint Against Officer of the Year." The story noted the jobs held by Kenneth and Rosanne and included all the information and statements that appeared in the "Supplemental Statements." It also stated that when Mitch asked Chief Stevens why the incident wasn't further investigated, Stevens made the statement quoted at the end of the preceding paragraph. When he wrote the story, Mitch had never attempted to discuss the matter with either Kenneth or Rosanne. The story was based solely on the Face Sheet, Supplemental Statements, and his conversation with Chief Stevens.
Assume that by the time this story appeared, Kenneth and Rosanne's marriage had become more stable (visits to the marriage counsellor seemed to have helped, and Kenneth knew his suspicions of Rosanne's "affair" were groundless). However, they feel embarrassed and humiliated by the story and wish to sue The Call. (They insist that they have no desire to sue Chief Stevens, as he remains Kenneth's boss).
Discuss what theories of liability each might reasonably pursue against The Call, and their likelihood of success. Assume the state in which these events occurred has no statutes directly pertinent to any of the issues, except the provisions mentioned in the second paragraph of this question.