Inspection of a news organization’s offices by law enforcement officers to find evidence of crimes believed to be in the possession of the news agency.
In a series of cases in the 1970’s, the press asserted that a fundamental aspect of the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment was the right to gather news without unreasonable restraint from the government. The press argued that the right to publish information was meaningless without some recognition of a right to gather information.
One of the issues pursued by the press was enhanced protection from newsroom searches by law enforcement officials seeking to discover evidence of crimes committed by someone other than the news organization or its employees. The press argued that if law enforcement agents were allowed to search news organizations’ files for evidence of wrongdoing collected in the course of reporting, the press’s efforts at news-gathering would be hampered. In particular, potential confidential sources would be less willing to confide in journalists because newsroom searches might uncover their names, and the press would engage in self-censorship to conceal its possession of information that might potentially interest law enforcement. Additionally, internal editorial deliberations would be inhibited by the prospect that a search would disclose the details of those deliberations, and reporters would be deterred from preserving information for future use for fear that it would be seized by the police. Lastly, the news organization’s operations would be disrupted during such searches.
In Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily
After Zurcher, Congress and several state legislatures enacted statutes providing news organizations with greater protections against searches. The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 bars searches of notes, drafts, or similar material prepared by journalists. Other material, including, for example, documents or other items given to a journalist, are subject to seizure in limited circumstances, such as when necessary to prevent serious physical injury or help a party obtain documents after the news organization has disobeyed a subpoena. Some state laws offer news organizations greater protection than the federal statute provides.
Dienes, C. Thomas, Lee Levine, and Robert C. Lind. Newsgathering and the Law. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie Law, 1997. Teeter, Dwight L., Jr., and Don R. Le Duc. Law of Mass Communications. Westbury: The Foundation Press, 1992.
Branzburg v. Hayes
Reversals of Court decisions by Congress
Search warrant requirement
Speech and press, freedom of
Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily