Facts
- David J. Lovejoy ran against incumbent Rockingham County Sheriff James Daniel Linehan in a contested election.
- Mark Peirce served as a deputy sheriff and Linehan’s second-in-command.
- A newspaper article reported that a record provided to the paper indicated Lovejoy had been convicted of simple assault in 1989, and that Lovejoy said the matter was annulled and “thrown out.”
- Lovejoy alleged Linehan and Peirce prepared documents containing information about his annulled conviction and provided the annulled criminal record to the reporter for publication during the campaign.
- Lovejoy alleged the disclosure forced him to address publicly a matter the annulment statute treats as private and confidential.
Issues
- Whether a complaint states a claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts when officials allegedly provide a reporter an annulled criminal record about a candidate for sheriff.
- Whether the “legitimate public concern” (newsworthiness) limitation defeats the tort claim as a matter of law at the motion-to-dismiss stage, notwithstanding statutory confidentiality for annulled records.
Decision
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the privacy claim against Linehan and Peirce.
- Accepting the pleaded facts as true for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes, the court held the alleged disclosure concerned a matter of legitimate public concern.
- Because newsworthiness is a required limitation on the public-disclosure tort, the claim failed as a matter of law.
- The court did not need to resolve whether the allegations satisfied other elements (e.g., “highly offensive” disclosure).
Legal Principles
- Public disclosure of private facts requires: (1) publicity about the plaintiff’s private life, (2) highly offensive disclosure to a reasonable person, and (3) the information is not of legitimate public concern.
- The “legitimate public concern” limitation is closely tied to First Amendment protections and can bar liability even when the information is embarrassing or derived from records generally treated as confidential.
- Information bearing on the character and fitness of candidates for public office—particularly for a law-enforcement office—is, in context, a matter of legitimate public concern.
- Statutory confidentiality for annulled conviction records does not eliminate the newsworthiness limitation or create tort liability independent of the common-law elements.
- Newsworthiness may be decided as a question of law on the face of the pleadings when no reasonable fact-finder could find the matter not of public concern.
Conclusion
The court held that, in an election for sheriff, a candidate’s prior conviction—even if annulled—was sufficiently related to voter evaluation of fitness for office to qualify as a matter of legitimate public concern, defeating a public-disclosure privacy claim at the pleading stage.