The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent


Prosecution Under Criminal Libel Statute Struck Down 30 Years Before Leads to $100,000 Settlement

"[Anne King's ex-husband], [Washington County Sheriff's Department] Captain King, feeling upset and 'disrespected' over the post, contacted Washington County's magistrate court about initiating a criminal complaint against Ms. King."


I wrote about the prosecution last year, when a federal district court allowed the case to go forward:

On January 15, 2015, Anne King posted on Facebook: "That moment when everyone in your house has the flu and you ask your kid's dad to get them (not me) more Motrin and Tylenol and he refuses." Her post referred to Captain Corey King, the father of Ms. King's children, her ex-husband, and an officer with the Washington County Sheriff's Department.

Later that morning, Captain King, feeling upset and "disrespected" over the post, contacted Washington County's magistrate court about initiating a criminal complaint against Ms. King. Captain King then went to the courthouse office of Washington County Sheriff's Department Investigator Trey Burgamy, his "[p]retty good friend" or "close friend," to begin the process for having Ms. King arrested…. [King was arrested and put in a holding cell for 5½ hours, until her aunt bailed her out.-EV]

"Criminal defamation" is not a crime under the laws of Georgia, and it has not been since the Georgia Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1982. In fact, the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook and the Official Code of Georgia that Investigator Burgamy used for his reference specifically stated that the criminal defamation statute "has been held unconstitutional in the case of Williamson versus State 1982." … Not surprisingly, the charges against Ms. King were ultimately dismissed….

Investigator Burgamy … ignores his critical role in the patently absurd, and unconstitutional, decision to arrest Ms. King for criminal defamation. It is a constitutional violation to sign an affidavit for a warrant that a reasonably well-trained officer would have known failed to establish probable cause and that he should not apply for the warrant. Accordingly, when the evidence is construed in the light most favorable to her, Ms. King has shown that Investigator Burgamy violated her constitutional rights by signing the affidavit for her arrest warrant….

Captain King set out to have Ms. King arrested for a Facebook post he did not like. A jury could reasonably find Captain King, given his law enforcement background, knew that Ms. King's post did not provide probable cause for her arrest. A jury could reasonably find Captain King enlisted Investigator Burgamy (who was not a licensed attorney) to assist him in his quest. A jury could also reasonably find Investigator Burgamy, after researching the law, knew that posting on Facebook the way Ms. King did was not a crime and most certainly did not constitute criminal defamation. Further, a jury could reasonably find that Investigator Burgamy swore to the truth of facts he did not know to be true. Given this, a jury could reasonably find that the Defendants jointly prosecuted Ms. King without probable cause….

Now, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Christian Boone) reports (in a pretty detailed article),

Last week, after nearly five years, [Anne] King finally received justice in the form of a $100,000 settlement and an apology.

Thanks to John Steakley for the pointer to the Journal-Constitution article.

NEXT: The Medal of Honor Recipient vs. The Historian, and the Right of Publicity

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course, she still has an arrest record which could haunt her if she applies for certain jobs (teacher, etc.).

    1. If one judge laughed the prosecutor out of the courtroom and another allowed both to be sued without qualified immunity, I should hope someone ordered the arrest expunged. I cannot find info on that, but that's what should have happened.

  2. I wonder how much it would take to keep me from wanting to push for a trial, just to rub their noses in their own piss. How much of that $100,000 is legal fees and how much does she get? The ACJ article doesn't say, but implies she got enough to move away, if she wanted. I wonder what kind of trade-off there was between more money and the public apology, and what kind of trade-off I'd take.

    I'm glad she won. Too bad the two criminals are still employed in their same jobs. I'd hope that in any case involving them, their background gets in the way and renders them a negative asset.

  3. We don't know if this was justice. Who will pay?

    The two officials involved weren't fired and it looks like they weren't even demoted, and the ACJ article said she sued Washington County, the sheriff’s office, Trey Burgamy and her ex-husband. So who is actually going to pay the judgement? I have a feeling it won't be Burgamy or the Ex, so that means taxpayers will be footing this bill, yet again.

    1. Exactly. But don’t expect a newspaper reporter to understand why it might be important to know who is paying, or even to connect the dots that two of the named parties actually means taxpayers. At least the judge was forced to resign. What a scum bag. “Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right.” And then he sent her to lock-up.

    2. The previous article implies they lost qualified immunity (hence all the clearly established talk), but you're right that no breakdown of the actual settlement can be found atm. Probably won't be. The city undoubtedly doesn't want taxpayers to find out two officials lost QI and the city paid out anyways.

      I mean, the malicious clowns are still employed, so the city officials clearly have no respect for the law. Neither does that magistrate, for that matter, but nothing happened to him either.

      1. Oops, didn't see that the magistrate resigned after a Judicial Qualifications Commission investigation was launched. Still... seems like in gross cases like this they should be liable.

Please to post comments