Judge weighs City of Minneapolis, police chief's motion to dismiss lawsuit filed by fired former officer

A Hennepin County District Court judge will decide if a lawsuit filed against the City of Minneapolis and its police chief will go forward.

Former Minneapolis Police Officer Tyler Timberlake, who filed the lawsuit, was ousted six months after he was hired after body camera video of him kneeling and using a stun gun on an unarmed man at his former department in Virginia surfaced in the Twin Cities last spring.

New documents reveal more questions of transparency, hiring process at MPD

Timberlake sued the city and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara in December, claiming O’Hara was fully aware of the 2020 use-of-force incident when he was hired but fired him months later anyway. The complaint alleged the chief of police made public false statements about what he knew and when.

Attorneys for O’Hara and the city, during a motion to dismiss hearing on Tuesday, claimed the case has no merit and requested the judge dismiss the lawsuit entirely.

Speaking on behalf of O’Hara, attorney Vicki Hruby argues that the chief cannot be sued for defamation because he has what’s known as “absolute privilege” under the law.

“I’d like to focus on Chief O’Hara’s role as a top-level executive in the City of Minneapolis,” she said, beginning to lay out the argument for “absolute privilege,” which Assistant City Attorney Munazza Humayun later referred to as the city’s “primary argument” as well.

In other words, the pair of attorneys argued, it doesn’t matter in this case whether or not the chief made false statements when he told journalists that he was unaware of the extent of the use-of-force incident Timberlake was previously involved in, claiming he cannot be sued for defamation because of his role as police chief and his responsibility to respond to media inquiries.

“Absolute privilege exists so top-level government officials will not hesitate when executing their job duties and keeping the public informed on issues of public concern,” Hruby said. “Under [the] plaintiff’s theory, they’re trying to, essentially, muzzle government officials. That’s contrary to long-standing precedent in this state.”

“There is no muzzling,” responded Timberlake’s attorney, Joe Tamburino, in an exclusive interview with 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS following the hearing. “Public information is very important. But when you go out in the press and you defame someone, that’s not giving public information.”

Tamburino noted that O’Hara didn’t address Timberlake’s hire until questions were asked, arguing the chief’s statements to the press were “self-serving” rather than an act of public service.

“Basically, the chief and the city argued to the court that the Chief of Police should have absolute immunity. That would expand absolute immunity to basically 300 other departments — law enforcement agencies — throughout the state,” he responded. “And, think about absolute immunity. That means no matter what you say, you can’t be liable. It’s a huge expansion of the law that has never happened before.”

In defense of the absolute privilege argument, another attorney for O’Hara, Doug Kelley, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS on Tuesday evening: “A high-ranking public official has the right to explain his actions and put information out in full transparency for the public, and Chief O’Hara has that right as he tries to reform MPD.”

The decision on whether to dismiss the lawsuit or let it continue its course based on Tuesday’s oral arguments is in the hands of Hennepin County District Court Judge Karen Janisch. If she rules against the city and police chief’s motions to dismiss, the case would be headed for trial, where more evidence is expected regarding how much the police chief knew and when — and if, as Timberlake has claimed, O’Hara gave him assurances that his past shouldn’t be a problem upon signing off on his hire.

A ruling is expected later this summer, if not sooner.