Shield law who is a journalist

Others have argued a law passed by Congress can be repealed by a future Congress piqued by our work. So what? And some still prefer to believe the First Amendment is all the protection we need. Our First Amendment Counsel, Bruce Sanford, says he has no doubt a law would prevent some reporters from going to jail. However, the shield law does not explicitly protect the information obtained from confidential or nonconfidential sources.

The shield law is the only source of privilege to have been applied in Indiana criminal cases and may be the only source in civil cases as well. Thus, under current case law, those materials that are not covered by the shield law are subject to disclosure if subpoenaed. If it is, such a privilege might cover those materials that are not protected under the shield law.

To overcome the qualified privilege, the subpoenaing party in a civil case would need to prove: 1 the materials sought are material and relevant to the action, 2 they are critical to a fair determination of the cause, and 3 the subpoenaing party had exhausted all other sources for obtaining the same information.

It is important to note, however, that the shield law applies only to state matters. Nonetheless, in a conflict of law, the shield law may still apply where state law governs the merits of the case. See Fed. See also Executive Management Servs. Fifth Third Bank , F. There is no other source of privilege in a criminal case.

The Indiana Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a qualified privilege exists under either the U. As stated above, the shield law applies to state matters only. Such limitation means that the shield law does not apply when a reporter is called before a federal grand jury. The Indiana Supreme Court has rejected application of a qualified privilege exists under either the U. It does not protect the information itself.

Such information might be protected under a separate First Amendment privilege in civil cases, if such privilege is still considered viable after the Supreme Court of Indiana rejected such a privilege on the facts presented in In re WTHR-TV State v. While the identities of sources are privileged under Indiana Code Section , it has yet to be decided whether the statute covers the information obtained from the sources, whether that information is confidential or nonconfidential.

See Slone v. State , N. Such materials might be protected under a qualified First Amendment privilege in civil cases, assuming that privilege was not eliminated by the Supreme Court's rejection of a constitutional privilege in criminal cases in In re WTHR-TV , N. The Indiana shield law does not differentiate between cases where the media is a party and where it is not. In Jamerson v. The court concluded that the constitutional provision did not prevent the legislature from modifying or restricting the right to sue for libel, by allowing the shield law to prevent some discovery in libel cases.

The Indiana shield law does not make any special provisions for libel actions. Jamerson v. The privilege can only be invoked if the person subpoenaed was acting in her capacity as a newsgatherer when she obtained the information sought. See Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. Bradley , N. State, N. Indiana's shield law applies to freelancers who have an employment relationship with a particular news medium. Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. The shield law has not be applied to other non-traditional newsgatherers in reported case law.

The privilege belongs to the reporter and cannot be claimed by the source. Hestand v. The Court addressed two arguments regarding the shield law. There are no special rules for service of subpoenas to the news media. Trial P. For general rules on subpoenas, see Ind. Generally, criminal subpoenas require compliance with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. See Cooper v. Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure 34 and 45 govern subpoenas duces tecum and other discovery request for documents.

Upon agreement of the parties to the litigation, an affidavit may be produced by the subpoenaed party in lieu of direct testimony. An attorney can issue a subpoena as an officer of the court in most situations or can have the court clerk issue a subpoena.

Various administrative bodies have the power to issue subpoenas. For instance, in connection with the investigation of a fire, the fire department may issue subpoenas, under Ind. The law does not require that the subpoenaing party be contacted prior to moving to quash, see Ind. Rule 45 B , but such contact is generally recommended. Rule 34 c. Indiana courts do not require that a notice of intent to quash be filed before the motion to quash. Rule P. To be safe, any motion to quash should be filed within three days of receipt.

However, if the subpoena calls for the production of tapes or documents, and if the entity subpoenaed is a non-party, then the provisions of Ind. A motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum in a grand jury proceeding must include a statement of facts and grounds in support of the objection to the subpoena.

The court must conduct a hearing on the motion to quash. Also, Ind. The motion to quash should be filed in the same court as the court that is hearing the case at issue. The media party need not wait for the subpoenaing party to file a motion to compel before filing a motion to quash. You will need to cite the applicable provisions of Ind. The Indiana shield law does not require a court to conduct an in camera review of materials or prior to deciding a motion to quash. However, in that circumstance, the discovery rules' prohibition on fishing expeditions and burdensome requests would effectively be lost if in camera review could be obtained without a showing of at least possible relevance.

There is no case law on this issue, but courts have broad powers to hold people in contempt for failing to obey a court order. The order was stayed pending the appeal. There are no Indiana rules on this issue. Generally, courts may set briefing schedules. You should also check local rules. Amicus briefs are accepted at the appellate level. For rules relating to amicus participation, see Ind. Generally, the burden is on the party moving to quash a subpoena for documents to show why the documents should not be produced.

Newton v. Yates , N. See id. As for other video or documents, such as interviews of persons relevant to a civil case, the elements that must be shown to overcome the First Amendment reporter's privilege recognized in In re Stearns Vollmer v.

However, it is unclear whether this constitutional privilege is still valid in Indiana. In re Crisis Connection, Inc. The Indiana Supreme Court held that this three-step test only applies to the discovery of nonprivileged information.

The material or testimony subpoenaed must be relevant to the case, under normal discovery rules. Nor do the Trial Rules allow the defendant to rummage through the files of third parties, particularly the press, for information whose materiality is only a matter of pure supposition.

A showing that the information is unique and likely not available from another source should normally be required. As for civil cases, the subpoenaing party under In Re Stearns Vollmer v. Zulka , must show that all other sources for this information have been exhausted.

The subpoenaing party, most likely, only needs to assert that the information is unique and not likely available from another source. The Indiana shield law protects a reporter from disclosing the identity of any source. The Indiana shield law is absolute and, therefore, does not require a judicial balancing of interests in determining whether to quash a subpoena, if the purpose of the subpoena is to learn the identity of a source.

The court, faced with a claim of privilege, must consider the following factors: 1 whether the materials sought are material and relevant to the action, 2 whether they are critical to a fair determination of the cause, and 3 whether the subpoenaing party had exhausted all other sources for the same information. It is unclear, however, whether this constitutional privilege still exists after the Indiana Supreme Court rejected such an approach for criminal cases.

See Civil Rights Law, Art. This definition omits, however, explicit reference to a professional journalist who is engaged in preparing a work product for publication by a book publisher.

The omission leaves journalists and their publishers vulnerable to contempt proceedings for failing to reveal sources or turn over notes that were used in preparation of a book. In , he was praised by Texas Rangers owner and U. President George W. Bush for his service to the sport. Soon after, for refusing to name a source, and the pair faced 18 months in jail — far more sentencing time than principals in the Balco affair eventually served.

Williams, now an investigative reporter for Reveal, escaped only because the source came forward and freed his colleague and him. What advice does Williams have for beginner and veteran reporters alike? Reporters stand to lose financially if a judge slaps a fine of untold thousands of dollars for defying a court order.

In many stories involving federal cases where prosecutors threaten document seizures or demands for court testimony, a judge or government official will cite a national security threat. In reality, Policinski insists, few instances actually are a matter of national security.

He said having a federal shield law might make officials think twice before issuing threats. Another issue is that in this digital age, courts disagree on the definition of a true journalist.