Defamation suit against former Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant will move forward

A federal judge ruled Friday that Ricardo Haro’s defamation lawsuit against former Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant can move forward.

In October 2020, Haro’s name and picture were plastered all over metro Atlanta news websites and broadcasts following a joint press conference between then-Atlanta Police Department Chief Rodney Bryant and state and federal law enforcement agencies. 

At the press conference, officials announced that 12 so-called “repeat offenders” had been arrested as a result of a joint task force called “Operation Phoenix.” A press release was issued alongside the press conference that listed the 12 individuals’ names.

“These individuals were repeat violent offenders,” Bryant said during the October 2020 press conference. “There was some nexus with them and violence, and we deemed them to be responsible for some of the most violent crimes in the City of Atlanta. This included guns, gang affiliations, gun trafficking, and so on.”

But Haro hadn’t been arrested as a result of Operation Phoenix. He was not a repeat offender, gang member or gun trafficker.

Haro, then 19, had been arrested once, for a curfew violation at a protest on June 4, 2020, over a week before Bryant became chief of police and two months before Operation Phoenix began. During his arrest, he spat blood on an FBI agent, according to court filings. Those filings do not state how Haro ended up with a bloody mouth. Haro said he did not intentionally spit on the FBI agent. 

Haro was charged with violating curfew and simple battery, a state-level misdemeanor. He was never prosecuted for either alleged violation. 

According to transcripts of body camera footage of Haro’s arrest, an FBI agent said, “You get his shit, we’re going to send it to the uh, U.S. Attorney in August.” The agent later commented, “I really wanted to fucking knock the fuck out of him… I don’t know how you guys do this.”

In October 2021, Haro filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Bryant and the City of Atlanta, claiming they defamed him at the press conference and did so in retaliation for his speech in violation of the First Amendment.

In August 2024, a federal judge J. P. Boulee dismissed the First Amendment claim, saying there was no evidence that Bryant considered Haro’s protest activity when deciding to include him in the Operation Phoenix press conference. The judge also dismissed the defamation claim, citing a lack of jurisdiction, as the claim was based on state law and both parties resided in Georgia. The latter claim was dismissed without prejudice to allow Haro to refile the case in a state court. 

Haro was living in Georgia when he filed the case in October 2021. He then moved to Colorado in 2022 while the case was pending. Haro’s move to Colorado opened up a new theory of jurisdiction for the federal court, allowing Haro to again bring his state law defamation claim against Bryant, since federal law allows a U.S. District Court to hear cases between “citizens of different States” where damages sought are in excess of $75,000. Haro filed a new lawsuit in January 2025, renewing his defamation claim. 

Bryant’s attorneys argued that the case should again be dismissed, saying the police chief acted without malice or intent to injure Haro because he “simply recited information provided to him by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and his team.”

Haro’s attorneys argued, however, that Bryant did know that Haro was neither part of a gang nor a repeat offender. In the weeks leading up to the press conference, the FBI provided APD and Chief Bryant with PowerPoint slides, which they referred to as “baseball cards,” showing information about the individuals named in the Operation Phoenix press release. Haro’s card listed no gang affiliation or any investigations outside of one opened into the alleged assault on the FBI agent. 

On Friday, Jan. 2, Judge Boulee sided with Haro and ruled that his allegations “plausibly show that [Bryant] knew his statements were false at the time they were made and were made in retaliation for Plaintiff’s behavior during his arrest.”