PROVIDENCE — In a groundbreaking decision, a federal appeals court has ruled in favor of Johnson & Wales University in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former student who was cleared by a jury after being accused of assault and identified by name in a campus “crime alert.”

The decision, issued by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week, marks the first time a federal appeals court has interpreted the federal Clery Act, which requires that universities receiving federal money notify students and faculty when certain crimes take place on and around campus.

“The Act stipulates no hard-and-fast rules but, instead, gives institutions of higher learning substantial leeway to decide how notices should be phrased and disseminated so as most effectively to prevent future incidents,” Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote. “The need to assure safety and security for campus communities counsels that doubts should be resolved in favor of notification.”

Attention focused on campus crime alerts earlier this year after a Virginia Tech student killed 32 people in two separate attacks about two hours apart. The nonprofit group Security on Campus filed a complaint asking the U.S. Education Department to investigate whether a delay in notification violated the Clery Act.

Yesterday, S. Daniel Carter — senior vice president for Security on Campus, based in King of Prussia, Pa. — hailed the 1st Circuit ruling, saying, “This is significant because it makes clear that colleges and universities are protected when they name a suspect in a timely warning. It makes clear they have an obligation to include as much information as they know, up to and including suspect identification.”

But Carter said colleges should make clear that a crime has been alleged, as opposed to stating that someone has committed a crime.

Christopher Havlik, of Medford, N.Y., enrolled in Johnson & Wales in 2002. On Sept. 17, 2004, he took part in a “heated exchange” with another student, Donald Ratcliffe, on a sidewalk near the intersection of Richmond and Pine streets in Providence, the ruling said. Havlik punched Ratcliffe, and Ratcliffe smacked his head on the sidewalk, receiving a concussion and a fractured skull.

The Providence police charged Havlik with simple assault, a misdemeanor. A witness told the police Havlik was holding a knife during the confrontation. Campus security concluded the incident probably stemmed from “fraternity-related animosities” and that Havlik “reputedly flashed a knife.” Also, a witness said he and a friend feared Havlik and his fraternity brothers would retaliate against them for cooperating in the probe, the ruling said.

Three days later, the university notified Havlik that he was temporarily suspended for allegedly assaulting another student, possessing a knife and engaging in criminal behavior. That day, university lawyer Barbara Bennett revised the draft of a crime alert, adding Havlik’s name and the name of his fraternity. “The ZBT fraternity members were angry that the two students had chosen not to join the fraternity,” the alert stated. “The assailant was identified as Christopher Havlik.”

The next morning, on Sept. 21, 2004, the student conduct board concluded Havlik was “responsible” for assaulting another student and taking part in lawless behavior but “not responsible” for possessing a knife. The board called for Havlik to be dismissed from the university. At 4 that afternoon, campus security posted the crime alert, which still mentioned the knife.

Havlik appealed the board’s decision, and met with the university’s vice president for student affairs, Ronald Martel, who accused Havlik of lying about the incident and called his fraternity brothers “thugs,” the ruling said. Martel turned the matter over to an appeal officer, Veera Sarawgi, who supported the decision to dismiss Havlik.

Havlik was found guilty of assault during a bench trial in state District Court. But he appealed, and a Superior Court jury acquitted him in May 2005. Havlik then sued in U.S. District Court, alleging “defamatory publication of false information by means of the crime alert and breach of contract for the university’s failure to provide a fair appeal process.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Mary M. Lisi granted summary judgment in the university’s favor, saying it acted without malice and had a qualified privilege stemming from its duty to publish the crime alert. Havlik appealed.

Selya noted the 1990 act was amended and renamed in 1998 for Lehigh University freshman Jeanne Ann Clery, who was raped and murdered in her residence hall in 1986. The act requires “timely reports” of crimes “considered to be a threat to other students and employees,” and the 1998 amendments expanded the act to include certain “noncampus” and “public” property.

Havlik’s lawyer, John R. Mahoney, challenged the conclusion that this sidewalk fell under the act’s definition of public property. But Selya said Bennett believed the crime took place in the vicinity of the campus, in an area frequented by students. “Reasonableness is the beacon by which institutions must steer, and reasonableness is not totally constrained by mathematically precise metes and bounds,” he wrote.

Havlik’s lawyer argued that there were indications of malice, such as Martel’s negative comments and the mention of the knife in the crime alert.

But Selya said there was no evidence that those who published the crime alert knew the board had cleared Havlik of the knife charge. And while Martel “arguably may have harbored some hostility toward the plaintiff,” Selya said, “Martel’s statements were made after the publication of the crime alert, and there is simply no evidence that Martel played any part in the preparation of that document.”

Havlik’s lawyer noted that during a two-year period, five other crime alerts involving students did not include the names of alleged perpetrators. But Selya said that in all but one of those cases, the student’s identity wasn’t known when the crime alert was published.

The lawyer who represented the university, Paul V. Curcio, said schools had been “between a rock and a hard place” in deciding what to include in crime alerts, but this opinion “gives colleges wide latitude.”

Havlik’s lawyer said Havlik was “truly a victim,” having been kicked out of school and then found not guilty of committing the crime. Mahoney said he was disappointed in the ruling but does not plan an appeal at this time.

efitzpat@projo.com