on & Wilson, Inc., 88 Wash.2d 473, 476 (1977); accord Moore v. Smith, 89 Wash.2d 932, 937 (1978); Engelmohr v. Bache, 66 Wash.2d 103, 105-106, cert. dismissed, 382 U.S. 950 (1965); Story v. Shelter Bay Co., 52 Wash. App. 334, 760 P.2d 368, 371 (1988).
In Story, the proceedings involved federal and state agencies which had powers identical to that of a judge, including the sanctioning and striking of false testimony. The section of the code granting the SPI the powers to decertify teachers does not explicitly grant such powers as would protect against the abuse of absolute privilege. More importantly, the defendant obtained affidavits from his daughter and a friend of the family, alleging misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, without any safeguards against false statements. Recognizing this, the trial court properly refused to admit the affidavits as evidence of the truth of the allegations. See Appendix at 44.
The opposing counsel's brief asserts that the Story holding provides absolute immunity to any reporting of suspected wrongdoing. In fact, however, the court in Story refused to provide absolute immunity for such statements made to the Consumer Protection Division of the state Attorney General in that case. The court ruled that since the Consumer Protection Act did not grant the Consumer Protection Agency powers similar to those of the other federal and state agencies involved (striking false statements and disciplining those making them) there existed no adequate safeguards against the abuse of the privilege. Although the Attorney General argued that sufficient safeguards were provided by its ability to conduct impartial investigations and the low probability that a file would be made public, the court disagreed. The court cited with approval the statement of the Washington Supreme Court in Twelker that absolute immunity should be limited to situations where the proceedings are controlled by authorities who have t...