Lawfare interviews Freedom of the Press Foundation about Marion

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
Dear friend of press freedom,

Here are some of the most important stories we’re following from the U.S. and around the world. If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please forward it to friends and family. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here ([link removed]) .

The federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 was passed in the wake of a police raid on The Stanford Daily to protect journalists from searches and seizures. But the raid in Kansas is the latest proof that too many cops and judges don't know or don't care about the PPA's protections. John Loo, via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.


** Guide helps journalists when police come knocking
------------------------------------------------------------

When police applied ([link removed]) for a warrant to raid the Marion County Record, they didn’t bother mentioning the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — a federal law that largely bans newsroom seizures. They claimed afterward ([link removed]) that they knew about the PPA but didn’t think it applied (we have our doubts). And the judge who issued the warrant was apparently clueless about the law.

Marion authorities are far from ([link removed]) the only ones ([link removed]) who have proven nonplussed about the PPA and other protections against searches and seizures ([link removed]) of journalists’ equipment. It’s a real problem that law enforcement and judges seem so confused (at best) about such an important press freedom law. It’s crucial that journalists themselves know their rights, especially when the government doesn’t. That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) collaborated with the First Amendment Foundation ([link removed]) on a guide covering journalists’ rights and how they should respond if police attempt to seize their newsgathering materials. You can read the guide here
([link removed]) .

Lawfare: Press freedom after Marion

FPF Deputy Advocacy Director Caitlin Vogus ([link removed]) spoke to the “Lawfare” podcast last week about the police raid ([link removed]) of the Marion County Record, its chilling effect on the press, and steps journalists can take to protect themselves ([link removed]) against future police raids and other searches.

As Vogus told “Lawfare” Managing Editor Tyler McBrien: “The raid on Marion was rare, but it is not the only type of violation of press freedom that’s in a similar vein that we’re concerned about at Freedom of the Press Foundation. … We have to stay vigilant about press freedom in the U.S. We can’t be complacent and think we have the First Amendment and everything is fine.”

You can listen to the whole podcast ([link removed]) here.

Use state law to shield journalists from police raids

The aforementioned Privacy Protection Act ([link removed]) likely got more ink than it has in decades after the raid on the Marion County Record. But too many law enforcement officers and judges don’t know about or understand the PPA, which itself predates Supreme Court cases ([link removed]) that further protect journalists from police harassment.

According to a guide ([link removed]) by the Student Press Law Center, at least seven states have their own laws giving additional protection against newsroom searches. We wrote on our blog ([link removed]) about the need for more states to do the same. If they do, it will increase the chances that authorities are familiar with these protections (and reduce their credibility when they claim not to be). It will also allow states to improve upon the PPA, for example by eliminating its easily abused exceptions ([link removed]) and scrapping its subjective “good faith” defense, which lets cops off the hook if they convince a judge they made an honest mistake. It’s fair to expect police to know not to raid newsrooms — let’s stop giving people like Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody
([link removed]) the benefit of the doubt.


** What we’re reading
------------------------------------------------------------

Kansas reporter sues Marion police chief, alleging retaliation in newsroom raid ([link removed]) . Speaking of Chief Cody, we were glad to learn that Marion County Record journalist Deb Gruver is suing him over the raid. Police seized Gruver’s phone even though she was never alleged to have any connection to the nonexistent crimes they claimed her colleagues committed. Gruver’s lawsuit alleges the raid was done in retaliation for her and other Record journalists’ investigation of the chief. Hopefully, her suit will put police across the country on notice that they can’t use trumped-up claims of criminal wrongdoing to retaliate against journalists who investigate them.

After raid on newspaper, Kansas Democrats want to limit who can issue search warrants ([link removed]) . Police weren’t the only ones who acted badly in the Marion County Record raid. A magistrate judge signed a search warrant that was so deficient that the Marion County attorney withdrew it just days later. Now, Kansas lawmakers are considering whether to limit the power to issue search warrants to district court judges, who — unlike magistrates — must have a law license and experience practicing law. Requiring judges to have more qualifications before they can authorize search warrants is a good idea. But all judges must be trained to not infringe on journalists’ legal and constitutional rights.

The NYPD Denied Our Request for Body Camera Footage of a “Friendly Fire” Killing. Here’s How We Got It Anyway. ([link removed]) Over and over again, police have gone to great lengths to keep information secret about officers involved in shootings or other altercations — including making outrageous privacy claims ([link removed]) under victims’ rights laws. Recently, the New York Police Department claimed that turning over videos of police shooting at a fellow officer would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The public has a right to scrutinize officers’ conduct while on the job, and police shouldn’t be able to hide behind “privacy” claims to avoid accountability.

FOIL ruling a setback for your right to know ([link removed]) . A New York court ruling could make requesting public records prohibitively expensive by allowing the government to charge for employee time spent reviewing and redacting documents. Sky-high costs for public records discourage journalists and citizens from pursuing records requests. Taxpayers already pay for government employees to handle records requests. It’s ridiculous (and contrary to previous court rulings ([link removed]) ) to charge requesters again to access documents that already belong to them.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 Freedom of the Press Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:
Freedom of the Press Foundation
49 Flatbush Ave, #1017
Brooklyn, NY 11217
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.