## Facts

- Albert M. Mark, a Seattle pharmacist and Medicaid provider, was investigated by the King County Prosecutor’s Office for alleged Medicaid fraud.
- On December 29, 1976, a deputy prosecutor briefed the press that charges would be filed and described the case as the state’s largest Medicaid fraud prosecution.
- The prosecutor distributed copies of the criminal information, an affidavit of probable cause, and a suspect information report supporting issuance of an arrest warrant.
- Newspapers and television stations reported on the impending/filing criminal charges, relying on the prosecutor’s statements and the official documents.
- Mark sued multiple media entities for defamation and invasion of privacy, including an intrusion claim based on a 13‑second television clip of him speaking on the phone inside his pharmacy.
- The clip was filmed through a pharmacy window after closing, from a driveway area leased to tenants, and was broadcast in connection with the charge coverage.
- Trial courts granted summary judgment to each defendant; the Court of Appeals affirmed in four cases, and the remaining case reached the Washington Supreme Court on direct review; the matters were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether reports based on official charging documents and a prosecutor’s press statements were protected by a qualified privilege for fair and accurate accounts of official proceedings and public records.
2. Whether Mark produced sufficient evidence of falsity, fault, and abuse of any privilege—under the required evidentiary standard—to defeat summary judgment.
3. Whether filming and broadcasting Mark inside his pharmacy through a window constituted an actionable intrusion upon seclusion.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held the publications and broadcasts were covered by a qualified privilege to report fairly and accurately on official proceedings and public records.
- Mark failed to show, with the required clarity, that the challenged statements were false or that defendants acted with the level of fault necessary to defeat the privilege.
- The court rejected the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because the filming occurred in a commercial setting visible from a nonprivate location and did not depict highly offensive or intimate conduct.
- No genuine issue of material fact existed on defamation or invasion of privacy.

## Legal Principles

- Media have a qualified privilege to publish fair and accurate accounts of official proceedings and public records, including criminal charging documents and related governmental statements.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment in a media defamation case must present evidence of falsity and fault sufficient to show an abuse of the qualified privilege; minor inaccuracies do not defeat the privilege if the gist is substantially true.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an unreasonable, highly offensive intrusion into a private place or affairs; visibility from a location accessible to lawful visitors and depiction of ordinary business activity weigh against liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that reporting criminal charges from official records and a prosecutor’s public briefing was privileged and not shown to be falsely or negligently reported, and that brief filming through a business window of routine conduct in a pharmacy did not constitute an actionable intrusion upon seclusion.


Mark v. Seattle Times, 635 P.2d 1081 (Wash. 1981)