Fact Pattern: Peter Protester is a fairly well-known rabble-rouser. His demonstrations have made news across the southwest, and he's been on TV several times. Now, he has had it with the current state of politics. He gathers his group of followers, and they head to downtown Phoenix to make their grievances known. Peter's followers are generally law-abiding, but there are a few in there who have been arrested after turning peaceful protest into vandalism.
After about two hours of chanting and marching, Peter yells, "Alright, we've done the peaceful thing long enough. Now let's take some real action! Let's start breaking some windows now!"
Phoenix Police immediately arrest him.
Meantime, Rachel Reporter is in the KPHO-TV newsroom and gets a call from a police source. The source tells Rachel to take a look at the police report from Peter's arrest. Rachel heads down to the Phoenix Police Records Department and gets a copy of the police report. In it, the arresting officer writes, "This is the same Peter Protester who was convicted of domestic terrorism in 2010."
Rachel believes she has a real scoop on her hands and calls for a live truck to meet her at the scene of the protest. Rachel's live report includes the news of today's arrest. She also quotes the police report, saying Peter was convicted of domestic terrorism in 2010." Rachel did not check with police or try to get ahold of Peter in jail or speak to his lawyer to verify the conviction.
As it turns out, the police report was inaccurate. Peter was never convicted of domestic terrorism.
What charge would prosecutors likely file against Peter and will the case succeed? why?
If Peter sues Rachel, what lawsuit would he likely file and would he succeed? why? Is actual malice required here and is it present? why? Does the fair report privilege apply here to protect Rachel from liability? why?