Guide helps journalists when police come knocking

When police applied 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 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 the only ones who have proven nonplussed about the PPA and other protections against searches and seizures 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 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.

Lawfare: Press freedom after Marion 

FPF Deputy Advocacy Director Caitlin Vogus spoke to the “Lawfare” podcast last week about the police raid of the Marion County Record, its chilling effect on the press, and steps journalists can take to protect themselves 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 here.

Use state law to shield journalists from police raids

The aforementioned Privacy Protection Act 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 that further protect journalists from police harassment. 

According to a guide 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 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 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 the benefit of the doubt.

What we’re reading

Kansas reporter sues Marion police chief, alleging retaliation in newsroom raid. 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. 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. 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 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. 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) to charge requesters again to access documents that already belong to them.