City’s Brief Acting Police Chief Felled By Old New York Times Doctrine

The lingering ghosts of the Floyd tragedy, the Chauvin trial, and the deep internal rifts within the MPD continue to haunt the city’s police department.

The short-lived tenure of Minneapolis’s recent acting Police Chief has collided with a major civil lawsuit—yielding an unpleasant outcome at the rocky intersection of constitutional law and local policing practices.

In late May, Assistant Chief Katie Blackwell was elevated by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to serve as acting Police Chief. The appointment followed the abrupt resignation of Brian O’Hara, who became ensnared in a scandal involving his alleged interference in an internal investigation into sexual improprieties among city personnel.

Blackwell’s time at the absolute peak of the department’s hierarchy lasted just eight days. Mayor Frey quickly supplanted her by selecting Bill Peterson, a 30-year veteran and head of the city’s anchor First Precinct downtown, to lead the embattled department pending a national search. Blackwell, a 27-year veteran of the force, subsequently reverted to her prior role as Assistant Chief.

Coincidentally, this rapid changing of the guard occurred just two days after the sixth anniversary of the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police officers on Memorial Day, May 25, 2020. That historic fatality led to the departure of former Chief Medaria Arradondo, whose retirement ushered in O’Hara—Frey’s high-profile appointee from Newark, New Jersey. Though initially approved unanimously by the City Council, O’Hara’s relationship with lawmakers deteriorated so severely that a bitterly contested confirmation battle was already brewing at the time he stepped down.

The Floyd Fiasco and the Perjury Accusation

Assistant Chief Blackwell’s law enforcement career has been deeply marked by the Floyd case. She served as a critical witness for the prosecution in the state court murder trial of Derek Chauvin, providing pivotal testimony that secured his conviction in Hennepin County District Court.

Blackwell explicitly told the downtown Minneapolis jury that the neck and body restraints Chauvin applied to Floyd on Chicago Avenue were directly contrary to department policy, memorably stating:

“It’s not what we train.”

That testimony soon drew fierce blowback from conservative critics. Liz Collin, a former WCCO-TV news anchor and voice for the online publication Alpha News, targeted Blackwell in her 2024 book They’re Lying and the related documentary film The Fall of Minneapolis. Collin, who is married to retired police lieutenant and former union head Bob Kroll, relied on sworn statements from 33 former MPD officers asserting that their official training did include the procedures Chauvin utilized. Notably, 14 of those officers asserted that Blackwell had flat-out lied under oath.

The public accusation of perjury prompted Blackwell to hit back with a lawsuit for libel in Hennepin County District Court, claiming her professional reputation had been deeply harmed by the allegation of a felony offense. Under long-standing Minnesota doctrine, a false accusation of a crime of this nature constitutes libel per se, which traditionally allows a claimant to recover monetary and punitive damages without needing to prove specific economic harm.

The New York Times Shield

Blackwell’s legal counteroffensive was ultimately short-circuited by a monumental constitutional barrier: the New York Times rule.

Derived from the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, this doctrine prohibits public officials, public figures, or individuals involved in matters of intense public interest from recovering damages for defamation unless they can clear an exceptionally high hurdle. A plaintiff must prove the offensive statements were made with “actual malice”—meaning the speaker either knew the information was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth.

To make matters more difficult for plaintiffs, actual malice cannot be proven by a simple preponderance of the evidence; it must be established by “clear and convincing” evidence, a heightened standard requiring elevated clarity and certainty.

While conservative critics, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have frequently advocated for modifying or retracting the Times doctrine in favor of a standard negligence rule, the precedent has robustly stood the test of time.

Rose Arose: The Minnesota Precedent

The strength of this doctrine in Minnesota was solidified nearly six decades ago in the 1967 case [suspicious link removed]. In that matter, Arnold Rose—a prominent University of Minnesota sociology professor, author, and former state legislator—was falsely labeled a communist “collaborator” by a right-wing commentator.

While Rose initially prevailed in front of a Hennepin County jury, his victory was ultimately overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled that the New York Times standard protected the commentary because Rose was a public figure involved in a matter of public concern.

Blackwell’s lawsuit never even made it to a jury. Hennepin County District Court Judge Edward Wahl dismissed her case outright under the Times precedent. Judge Wahl ruled that as a high-ranking law enforcement official, Blackwell was a public figure speaking on a matter of immense public interest, and she had failed to produce evidence of actual malice.

Furthermore, the judge observed that the reporting by Alpha News regarding the conflicting officer training statements was “substantially true.” Under traditional defamation law, absolute truth remains a complete defense to any claim of reputational harm, independent of the heightened constitutional protections.

To compound the sting of the dismissal, Judge Wahl ordered Blackwell to pay $75,000 to cover the legal fees incurred by Alpha News.

The Giglio Conundrum

Beyond the financial penalty, the dismissal carries severe structural implications for Blackwell’s ongoing law enforcement career due to another federal constitutional doctrine known as Giglio.

Derived from the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Giglio v. United States, the law requires criminal prosecutors to proactively disclose to defense attorneys any material blemishes regarding the credibility, honesty, or integrity of any state witnesses—especially police officers.

The Impact of a Giglio Taint:

• Witness Impairment: Cops with “Giglio-marred” records are often effectively barred from testifying because their past credibility issues can easily imperil a successful prosecution.

• Career Stagnation: Because they can no longer reliably testify in court, compromised officers are routinely restricted from major investigative roles, field duties, or internal promotions.

Because a district court judge has now legally documented that the accusations of her trial mendacity were “substantially true,” Blackwell faces a significant Giglio hurdle. Any defense attorney in a future criminal case where Blackwell is called to testify will undoubtedly weaponize Judge Wahl’s findings to impeach her credibility on the stand.

This leaves City Hall facing a profound irony: Mayor Frey temporarily replaced a Police Chief whose management integrity was under fire with an assistant chief whose legal veracity has been severely compromised. While the dismissal of the lawsuit brings Blackwell’s civil case to an end, the lingering ghosts of the Floyd tragedy, the Chauvin trial, and the deep internal rifts within the MPD continue to haunt the city’s police department.