## Facts

- Christopher Havlik, a Johnson & Wales University student, was involved in a late-night altercation near campus in September 2004 in which he punched another student, who suffered a concussion and fractured skull.
- Witness accounts varied; at least one witness reported to police that Havlik held a knife during the confrontation.
- Campus safety prepared an incident report describing Havlik as the likely aggressor, stating he “reputedly” displayed a knife, and noting possible fraternity-related animosities and concerns about retaliation.
- The university temporarily suspended Havlik for alleged violations including assault, knife possession, and criminal behavior; a conduct board later found him responsible for assault and lawless behavior but did not find knife possession.
- The same day as the conduct hearing, the university issued a campus crime alert intended as a timely warning under the Jeanne Clery Act; it identified Havlik by name, mentioned his fraternity, and stated he possessed a knife.
- Havlik sued for defamation under Rhode Island law, alleging the alert falsely stated he had a knife and unfairly portrayed him and his fraternity as threats.

## Issues

1. Whether a university’s campus crime alert issued as a timely warning under the Clery Act can support a defamation claim under Rhode Island law based on statements about a student’s alleged knife possession and threat to campus safety.
2. Whether the crime alert was protected by a qualified privilege because it was issued to satisfy a statutory duty to warn the campus community.
3. Whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of falsity, fault (including malice sufficient to defeat a privilege), and defamatory meaning to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Johnson & Wales University.
- The court held that the crime alert fell within a qualified privilege under Rhode Island law because it was issued in furtherance of a statutory duty and communicated to an audience with a corresponding safety interest.
- The court concluded Havlik did not produce evidence that the university knew the knife statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth, nor evidence of abuse of the privilege.
- The court found the university had a reasonable basis for referencing a knife based on contemporaneous witness and incident-report information, despite the conduct board’s later non-finding on knife possession.

## Legal Principles

- The Clery Act requires participating institutions to issue timely warnings to their campus communities about certain reported crimes presenting a serious or continuing threat.
- Under Rhode Island law, a defamation plaintiff must prove a false and defamatory statement of fact published about the plaintiff to a third party with the required level of fault and resulting harm.
- A qualified privilege protects communications made in good faith pursuant to a legal or social duty to recipients sharing a corresponding interest; the privilege is defeated only by abuse, such as excessive publication or malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard).
- A later determination that an allegation was unproven does not, by itself, establish that an earlier safety warning based on then-available reports was knowingly false or reckless.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the university’s Clery Act timely warning was a qualifiedly privileged safety communication and that, on the summary judgment record, the student failed to show malice or other abuse sufficient to overcome the privilege or otherwise establish actionable defamation.


Havlik v. Johnson & Wales Univ., 509 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007)