Freedom of information — sometimes
Some think it should be illegal for new organizations to publish information not received via "official" sources, and in many totalitarian countries it is. In Britain, the news media are prohibited from publishing or airing any story about a legal case until it has gone completely through the court process, which of course can take years.
In the ostensibly democratic United States, freedom of information laws can't prevent government agencies from withholding information that is supposed to be available to any citizen, not just the press. Periodically, the California First Amendment Coalition checks to see if officials are obeying the law. They teamed up with the Society for Professional Journalists and sent university students out to ask for public records at more than 130 local government agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties.
The survey revealed that "local California agencies turned down initial requests for records 77 percent of the time. Law enforcement officials were the worst violators of the law, managing to deny 80 percent of legitimate requests." In one case, a police department demanded that a requester sign an affadavit stating she had never been arrested within the department's jurisdiction.
A similar survey in Humboldt County would be a good idea. It would not be surprising to find a similar percentage of denials.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota this week, another example of what happens when law enforcement agencies try to make up their own laws. A TV reporter working on a story was denied access by St. Paul police to a seven-year-old traffic arrest report — a public document — so he got a copy from a county employee. The police obtained an administrative subpoena (from a DA, not a judge) to seize the reporter's cell phone records in an effort to identify the employee who had the effrontery to obey the law.
The TV station's lawyers think this is not only a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, but of state law as well. According to an AP story, University of Minnesota media law and ethics professor Jane Kirtley said Minnesota law makes it very hard for police to force reporters to turn over their notes and sources. But she added, "If you're going to pursue a story the government doesn't want you to pursue, you're going to have to be very prepared for the real possibility that they will take any steps they can to unmask your sources."
Comments
My question would be, in what way is the public served by a leak such as this? If we know on Tuesday, instead of Friday, are we better informed?
Posted by: Carson Park Ranger | December 14, 2007 04:36 AM
Try getting the Child Abuse Services Team (CAST) stats from the DA's Office. Or the DV Grant info,
Posted by: Rose | December 14, 2007 04:35 PM
Mr. Ranger: Regarding the question "are we (i.e. the public) better informed?" I say yes, but that's my default, professional, admittedly subjective opinion. Ask the question another way: What harm is done by reporting what has already happened in such an important local news story? I see none. The defendants had been informed of their indictments and order to appear, but without our story the public could still be in the dark. The Dec. 10 hearing would have been held without public notice, and since all records of the case have been sealed (including any minutes and case numbers of the Dec. 10 hearing itself, let alone the indictment), even a reporter going through the court records might not have learned anything about it till Feb. 21, 2008.
Posted by: Rich Somerville | December 14, 2007 08:23 PM
Afew years ago a Sargent at the CHP office in Arcata refused to give me a current list of pay schedules for CHP officers. While explaining the facts of life to him another officer handed me the information I wanted. The sarge was not happy and appeared ready to beat up on both of us. The next day the Captain called and explained that the officers were in negotiations for large salary increases with Gov. Davis and didn't want the public to know what they were currently getting.
Posted by: Old Forester | December 14, 2007 10:57 PM
That would be an interesting survey to conduct here in Humboldt County. Maybe the T-S will undertake it sometime.
Government tends to be too secretive. The above story about the Minnesota cops refusing to release a traffic arrest report is a case in point. Police by nature are control freaks and often make snap judgments about releasing information that by law is public information.
We have a journalistic tradition in this country of publishing leaked information. It serves as yet another check and balance on government. And the courts have protected journalists' rights to do so, notably the 1971 Supreme Court decision in favor of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers case.
I read in your column, Rich, that the DA is investigating the Moore grand jury leak, but you haven't received any subpoenas. These are somewhat troubling times for journalists and their rights to protect sources. Prosecutors have been able to jail reporters; Judith Miller of the NY Times in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case being the most prominent. That case seems to have emboldened prosecutors in their attempts to squeeze journalists. California does have a journalists shield law, but it doesn't provide absolute protection.
That said, I doubt if Paul Gallegos goes down this road with John Driscoll and Thad Greenson. And if he does, I will make sure to visit them in jail.
Posted by: Andrew Bird | December 15, 2007 05:42 AM