Suing Over Statements Made by a Former Police Official
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced West Virginia attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Managing Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed January 1, 2026
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
A former local police chief stated about cockroach memo to harass people who came out of a house in town, and that house was mine.
Attorney Answer
The clock is your first problem. In West Virginia a defamation claim must be brought within one year, and if the memo you describe is older than that, the claim is likely gone before any of the rest matters.
W. Va. Code § 55-2-12(c) sets a one-year period for an action of a nature that, if a party died, could not have been brought at common law by or against a personal representative. Defamation is the classic claim in that category. Do not confuse it with the two-year periods in subsections (a) and (b), which cover damage to property and personal injury.
The elements and the defenses come from Zsigray v. Langman, 243 W. Va. 163, 842 S.E.2d 716 (2020). A private-figure plaintiff must prove a defamatory statement, a nonprivileged communication to a third party, falsity, reference to the plaintiff, at least negligence by the publisher, and resulting injury. Two parts of that decision cut directly against a case like yours. Testimony given as a fact witness in a judicial proceeding is absolutely immune from a defamation claim. And statements made to a law-enforcement officer during an investigation, while not absolutely privileged, carry a qualified privilege — a good-faith statement about a matter in which the speaker has an interest or duty, published only to those with a legitimate interest — which you overcome only by proving bad motive. Whether a qualifiedly privileged occasion exists is a question of law for the court where the facts are undisputed. The Court also affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiff on the outrage and emotional-distress claims in that case.
There is one more hurdle specific to your facts. Zsigray requires "reference to the plaintiff." A memo about a house, or about people who came out of a house, is not automatically a statement about you as the owner. You would have to show it was understood to be about you.
What you can do
1. Get the actual document — the memo itself, in writing, with its date and its distribution list. Everything turns on what it says and to whom it went. 2. Write down the exact words that referred to you personally, as distinct from words about the property or its occupants. 3. Pin down the publication date. The one-year period under W. Va. Code § 55-2-12(c) runs from when the claim accrued. 4. Identify the setting of each statement: given in court or in a judicial proceeding, said to an investigating officer, or published to the public or press. Under Zsigray, that setting decides which privilege applies. 5. If the statements went to law enforcement, collect anything showing bad motive — prior disputes, threats, admissions — since that is what defeats a qualified privilege. 6. Take the memo to a defamation lawyer quickly, given the one-year period.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Zsigray v. Langman, 243 W. Va. 163, 842 S.E.2d 716 (2020) (No. 18-0461, decided Mar. 27, 2020) — Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
A signed opinion with syllabus points holding: (1) a private-figure defamation plaintiff must prove a defamatory statement, a NONPRIVILEGED communication to a third party, falsity, reference to the plaintiff, at least negligence by the publisher, and resulting injury (Crump v. Beckley Newspapers); (2) a judicial fact witness has ABSOLUTE immunity from a defamation claim based on relevant testimony given in a judicial proceeding — this defeated part of the claim outright; (3) statements made to a law-enforcement officer during an investigation are NOT absolutely privileged but may carry a QUALIFIED privilege — a good-faith statement about a matter in which the speaker has an interest or duty, published only to those with a legitimate interest — which is defeated by bad motive, and whether a qualifiedly privileged occasion exists is a question of law for the court where the facts are undisputed; and (4) the four elements of intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress, with the court deciding as a threshold matter whether conduct can be regarded as extreme and outrageous. Disposition: dismissal of the defamation claim reversed only as to the statements to the investigating trooper (because bad motive had been alleged); summary judgment for the defendant on the outrage/IIED claims AFFIRMED.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in West Virginia
- File or look up a case through the West Virginia Judiciary.
- Get free civil legal help from Legal Aid of West Virginia.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
The memo was about the house, not me by name. Can I still sue?
It is a real obstacle. Zsigray v. Langman lists reference to the plaintiff as an element a private-figure plaintiff must prove. A statement about a property or about unnamed occupants only reaches you if people who read it understood it to be about you, and you would have to prove that understanding.
He was chief of police at the time. Does that protect him?
It may. Under Zsigray, testimony given as a fact witness in a judicial proceeding is absolutely immune, and statements made to law enforcement during an investigation carry a qualified privilege defeated only by bad motive. A statement made in an official or investigatory setting is the hardest kind to sue over.
Can I sue for the stress this caused?
Be cautious. In Zsigray, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on the outrage and emotional-distress claims, and it treats whether conduct can be regarded as extreme and outrageous as a threshold question for the court. That claim is harder to win than people expect.