A commonwealth attorney’s office sealed 926 images police seized from a student newspaper’s newsroom, according to an April 20 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The images are from James Madison University’s student newspaper, The Breeze. They depict Springfest, an annual party hosted April 10. About 8,000 people attended the party, where a riot broke out. More than 30 people were arrested and 42 were injured as police intervened, according to the Times-Dispatch story. Authorities obtained a search warrant for the photos, which they claimed would help their investigation.
Commonwealth Attorney Marsha L. Garst led police in a search of the newsroom to obtain the photos, according to the Times-Dispatch story. Katie Thisdell, the student newspaper’s editor-in-chief, told the Times-Dispatch that she allowed police to copy the photos to a disc after Garst threatened to seize newsroom equipment.
The order to seal the photos didn’t come before press right advocates including the Society of Professional Journalists and the Student Press Law Center spoke out against the seizure. The Student Press Law Center hired the newspaper staff’s legal representation.
In a letter to Commonwealth Attorney Gurst, Society of Professional Journalists officials, including President Kevin Smith, called for the photos to be returned and an apology issued to the student media outlet. The letter also read:
The office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney has trampled on the freedom of the press by trying to use this media outlet as an arm of law enforcement. In a democratic society it is vital to have an unfettered press free to exercise the First Amendment without fear of government intervention.
We recognize the need to investigate an out-of-control public event where crimes may have been committed but there are more appropriate tools available to law enforcement than to bully the student newspaper.
I’m amazed that law enforcement officials think this type of search and seizure of media materials is legally justified. The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 clearly protects journalists from being required to give law enforcement materials in this manner. It also seems that the law enforcement agencies did not meet the burden of necessity for a legal search warrant for a newsroom as defined in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily.
It is a sad day when law enforcement uses the student media to do their jobs. I applaud our professional organizations for supporting the students on this issue.
Emily Duncan says
In this situation, I am glad the the envelope with the pictures has been handed over until a resolution is reached.
After reading the article, I was surprised by the demanding actions taken by the officer to get the pictures from Thisdell. The media enjoys no special privileges when it comes to gathering facts, so why should it be okay for the officer to take advantage our legal system to get the information he needs?
When I first read the article I was reminded of a previous case we had studied earlier this semester, Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1484). The precedent established here allows the newsroom to be searched if there is a warrant and a substantial legal reason to do so.
In this case there also was a warrant. However in this situation, I used the term “take advantage” because it was reported that “the right procedures weren’t followed.” And I’m assuming this is referring to some actions the officer took in order to obtain the search warrant.