710). The actual-malice standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made the statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997. “Reckless disregard of a statement’s truth” is a subjective standard, Harte-Hanks Commc’ns Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989); it is “not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published [] or would have investigated before publishing,” but by whether “the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [its] publication,” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968); see also Gertz, 418 U.S. at 331, 94 S.Ct. 2997 (<HOLDING>). While a defendant’s failure to investigate,
holding that the knowledge required by  14202 of the mcdca refers to actual knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the information or the existence of the right holding trial courts finding omission of information was not intentional or with reckless disregard for truth was not clearly erroneous recognizing that a defendant acts with reckless disregard when he displays a high degree of awareness of  probable falsity holding that in order to prevail on a  1983 claim for unlawful arrest a plaintiff needed to satisfy the test enunciated in franks v delaware 438 us 154 171 98 sct 2674 57 led2d 667 1978 which requires a showing that the maker of the affidavit either stated a deliberate falsehood or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth proof of negligence or innocent mistake is insufficient a plaintiff must  demonstrate that the police officer acted with reckless disregard for the truth as well as prove that the officer made the statements in his affidavits with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity holding prison official must have acted with reckless disregard for the inmates safety