When the Academy Awards were handed out Sunday night for cinematic excellence, one long-time thespian family was still grieving the loss of one of its members. The family is the Carradine kin, descended from John Carradine, a lanky character actor often cast in villainous or monstrous roles in films from the 1930s through the 1980s. The family was shaken by the suicide two weeks ago of his youngest son, Robert Carradine, an actor himself, who was memorialized along with other recently deceased members of the Hollywood community on the Academy’s 98th gala honors website.
The 71-year-old actor, who was bipolar, took his own life at his Los Angeles home on February 24. One of five sons of the progenitor John Carradine—and the brother of actors Keith Carradine and the late David Carradine of the popular Kung Fu television series—the deceased cut a wide swath in his acting career in a variety of roles over a span of more than four decades. He was best known for his role as the father in the Lizzie McGuire television series and, before that, as the lead nerd in the 1984 cult classic Revenge of the Nerds.
Landmark Lawsuit
Robert Carradine’s death has particular resonance here in Minnesota, where his encounter with law enforcement led to a landmark lawsuit affecting defamation law and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, one of the state’s two “Sunshine” measures.
Because of that imbroglio, it is often mistakenly thought that Revenge of the Nerds was filmed in Minnesota; it was actually shot mostly in Tucson, Arizona. However, Carradine’s Minnesota nexus concerns the intersection of defamation and data law attributable to his role as a plaintiff in lengthy litigation entitled Carradine v. State. It arose out of a criminal case but morphed into a key precedent in communications law. His unfortunate death provides an opportune occasion to recall that important case.
Trooper Trouble
In July 1987, Carradine’s trouble began when he was stopped by a Highway Patrol Trooper while speeding toward the MSP airport to catch an early morning flight. Clocked at 90 miles per hour, the incident culminated in a two-mile police chase. The arresting Trooper prepared a written report describing Carradine’s conduct as excessive speeding, reckless driving, fleeing an officer, and impersonating an officer—claims the actor and his passenger disputed.
Carradine was detained for ten hours and subjected to a strip search before being released. A local news reporter contacted the arresting Trooper, who described the events resulting in the arrest. The story was published locally and eventually picked up by national news sources. While the actor was initially charged with various violations, they were eventually pleaded down to a petty, non-criminal misdemeanor speeding offense.
Civil Case
After the plea, Carradine brought a civil case in Minneapolis against the Trooper and the state. While most claims were dismissed, the court allowed suits for defamation based on falsehoods damaging his reputation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability.
The case eventually reached the Minnesota Supreme Court. In January 1994, the Court framed two key issues: (1) whether to recognize absolute privilege or immunity from defamation for the arrest report, and (2) whether the ensuing statements to the reporter were also immune from suit.
Regarding the police report, the Court ruled “Yes.” It held that absolute immunity applies because preparing a written report is a “key part of an arresting officer’s job.” Subjecting officers to libel liability for these reports might result in “bland” or less detailed documentation, making them less useful for prosecution. Thus, the officer and the state were not legally liable for the contents of the report, even if the statements were false.
However, the Court ruled that statements to the press were a “different matter.” Responding to press inquiries is not an obligatory duty like preparing an official report; therefore, such comments are not “absolutely privileged.” This brought the Government Data Practices Act into play. If the comments to the media were an “exact or substantial repetition” of the official public record, they might not support liability. But because it was unclear exactly what the Trooper told the media, the case was sent back to the trial court to determine if the remarks lost their immunity.
A dissent by Justice Alan Page would have dismissed the case entirely for lack of “actual malice,” citing the high standard required for public figures under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. While the case returned to the lower court, the final outcome of the press statements remains lost to history. Nevertheless, the principles established in the Carradine case remain the controlling law in Minnesota regarding the interplay between libel law and the Data Practices Act.
The driving escapade was not Carradine’s only erratic vehicle incident. In 2015, he survived a violent crash on a California freeway that he later termed a “psychotic breakdown.” While the actor has passed, the legal principles established in his landmark Minnesota case continue to endure.
