JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes to us pursuant to the application for leave to appeal, pursuant toSupreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308), filed by the defendant, Capital Cities Media,Inc. (Capital Cities), doing business as the Belleville News-Democrat. The circuit court ofMadison County, Illinois, identified two questions of law on which it found a substantialground for a difference of opinion, and the court determined that an immediate appeal mightmaterially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

The issues identified by the trial court are as follows:

"Can the identification of plaintiff as a suspect in a criminal case in thenewspaper articles at issue be innocently construed as substantially true so as to barplaintiff's false[-]light privacy action where it also states, inter alia, that the victimknew her attacker?"

"Does [section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-217(West 1994))] bar plaintiff's instant complaint on the basis that plaintiff had twicepreviously filed a substantially similar complaint, where one of the previous actionswas nolle prossed [sic][] and the other was voluntarily dismissed on plaintiff'smotion?"

The facts pertinent to these questions are set forth as follows. On February 9, 1996,Robert Hurst (plaintiff) filed suit against Capital Cities and others on a false-light invasionof privacy theory. The cause of action was based upon an article published November 30,1995, in the Belleville News-Democrat. The article stated that a St. Louis television stationhad reported that plaintiff had been questioned for two hours by police in a recent rape case. The article went on to state that the Illinois State Police in charge of the case refused toconfirm or deny the television report and that the commander of the state police said that itwould be inappropriate to comment. The article also stated that plaintiff could not bereached for comment.

The article then recounted information that had been released to the public thepreceding day by the Madison County State's Attorney regarding the status of theinvestigation. In a public statement, the Madison County State's Attorney said, "I think ithas been established that she knew her attacker." The State's Attorney stated that the victiminitially "gave police a phony description of her attacker because she feared the real attackerwould seek revenge if his identity were revealed." The State's Attorney also said, "Thepublic should know there is not a serial rapist out there." The article went on to recount theState's Attorney's opinion that a rape had occurred and his explanation that the investigation,which was more than a month old, was continuing and was made more difficult because thepolice had experienced some difficulty working with the victim. The alleged incident hadreceived media attention prior to the November 30, 1995, article, as flyers reprinting acomposite sketch created with the victim's assistance had been published in several localpapers and broadcast locally.

At the time of this report, plaintiff was working at the St. Clair County sheriff'sdepartment as a part-time bailiff. He had been the chief of police of the City of Belleville,Illinois, from 1985 through 1993.

Plaintiff initially filed a complaint in St. Clair County court on February 9, 1996,naming Viacom Broadcasting of Missouri, a corporation, doing business as KMOV-TVChannel 4, Capital Cities, George Pawlaczyk, Lori Nolen, and Greg Edwards as defendants. The complaint against Capital Cities alleged theories of libel and invasion of privacy basedon the November 30, 1995, article. On February 13, 1996, plaintiff filed a motion to nol-pros the case on the ground that it was inadvertently filed in St. Clair County, Illinois. Thecourt granted the motion, and the case was dismissed that same day.

Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the circuit court of Madison County on February13, 1996. Therein, he named Viacom Broadcasting, Mary Phelan, Capital Cities, GeorgePawlaczyk, Lori Nolen, and Greg Edwards as defendants. The counts against Capital Citiesagain contained allegations of libel and invasion of privacy arising from the November 30,1995, article. On April 3, 1996, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss Capital Citiesand the other "newspaper defendants" from the lawsuit pursuant to section 2-1009 of theCode of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1009 (West 1994)). The court granted the motionthat same day. Nolen and the television defendants remained in the case.

On November 27, 1996, plaintiff filed a motion to amend count I of the complaintto correct typographical errors and to add Capital Cities and other newspaper personnel asdefendants. The court granted the motion, and plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint. In the fourth amended complaint, plaintiff added a count (count IX) against Capital Citiesand the other newspaper defendants. This count alleged an invasion of privacy arising fromthe November 30, 1995, article. Subsequently, plaintiff served Capital Cities with asummons and complaint.

On January 16, 1997, Capital Cities moved to dismiss the action filed against it, onthe grounds that plaintiff had twice voluntarily dismissed claims against it and wasprohibited from filing another action by the single-refiling rule. The circuit court heardhours of argument and considered a number of briefs on this issue and on the issue ofwhether the article is actionable under a false-light claim. Subsequently, the court certifiedthose two questions for our consideration.

The first question we are asked to address is whether the identification of plaintiff asa suspect in a criminal case in the newspaper article at issue can be innocently construed assubstantially true so as to bar plaintiff's false-light invasion of privacy action where thearticle also states, inter alia, that the victim knew her attacker. Stated simply, we are askedto decide whether the newspaper article is actionable on the basis of a false-light invasionof privacy claim.

In a false-light claim, the plaintiff must prove that he was placed in a false lightbefore the public as a result of the defendant's action, that the false light in which he wasplaced would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that the defendant acted withknowledge that the information he published was false or with reckless disregard forwhether the information was true or false. Lovgren v. Citizens First National Bank ofPrinceton, 126 Ill. 2d 411, 534 N.E.2d 987 (1989). Absent some allegation as to whatspecific statement was false, a claim based on false-light invasion of privacy fails to satisfya basic element of the cause of action. Kirchner v. Greene, 294 Ill. App. 3d 672, 683, 691N.E.2d 107, 116-17 (1998).

We first note that plaintiff has never set out the specific statement or section of theNovember 30, 1995, article that he found offensive, despite having filed an initial complaintand nine amended complaints against the newspaper. On that basis alone, the circuit courtcould have dismissed the case against Capital Cities for plaintiff's failure to plead a basicelement of the tort. See Kirchner, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 683, 691 N.E.2d at 116-17. Basedupon our review of the current amended complaint, it appears as though plaintiff iscomplaining that the newspaper published an article which stated that the victim hadidentified plaintiff as her attacker and accused him of abduction and rape when it hadknowledge that this statement was false or had serious reasons to doubt the truthfulness ofthe statement.

The newspaper article at issue states that a local television station reported thatplaintiff was questioned for two hours by the police in the case of a woman who claimed thatshe was abducted and raped. The article also reported that a state police commander refusedto confirm or deny the television report, stating that it would be inappropriate to comment. Plaintiff is not referenced again in connection with any aspect of the case. The article thenproceeded to recap public statements made the preceding day by the Madison County State'sAttorney in regard to the status of the investigation. The article noted that the State'sAttorney released information that the victim's account, in which she claimed she wasattacked by a stranger, had been recanted. The State's Attorney said, "I think it has beenestablished that she knew her attacker." In his public remarks, the State's Attorney indicatedthat he made this information public because he thought the citizens should know that theassault was not a random attack and that "there was not a serial rapist out there".

We have reviewed the contents of the article and find nothing therein that chargesplaintiff with the commission of a crime. See Trembois v. Standard Ry. EquipmentManufacturing Co., 337 Ill. App. 35, 43-44, 84 N.E.2d 862, 866 (1949); Adams v. Sussman& Hertzberg, Ltd., 292 Ill. App. 3d 30, 47, 684 N.E.2d 935, 947 (1997). In the November30 article, the newspaper did not identify plaintiff as a suspect. It did not accuse plaintiffof committing a crime or impute to him the commission of a crime. From our review of thearticle, the only portion that could arguably suggest criminal conduct is the report that thepolice interviewed plaintiff, and that would require a quantum leap of speculation andinnuendo. The article does not state that plaintiff was questioned as a suspect, nor does itimply a sinister motive to the interview. Plaintiff does not claim that the report that he wasinterviewed by the police is false.

The article did not state that the victim had identified plaintiff as the perpetrator. Infact, the article did not quote the victim directly or paraphrase any firsthand statement, trueor false, made by the victim. Rather, it recounts a public statement made by the MadisonCounty State's Attorney. It was the State's Attorney who attributed a statement to thevictim. According to the State's Attorney, the victim had recanted her initial statement thatshe was attacked by a stranger and stated instead that she knew the perpetrator. The State'sAttorney had released information about the status of the investigation a day or two beforethis article ran.

In our view, the report of information provided by the State's Attorney is subject tothe fair-reporting privilege. This privilege protects news accounts of written and verbalstatements made by governmental agencies and officials acting in their official capacities. Gist v. Macon County Sheriff's Department, 284 Ill. App. 3d 367, 375, 671 N.E.2d 1154,1159 (1996). "The publication of a defamatory matter concerning another in a report of anofficial action or proceeding or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter ofpublic concern is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement ofthe occurrence reported." Restatement (Second) of Torts