Reporter Shield Law Is ‘Cut in Half’ by Ruling

The California Shield Law does not protect news reporters if they are compelled to testify about their observation of public events, a state Court of Appeal ruled unanimously Thursday.

The three-justice panel of the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles rejected arguments by lawyers for the Los Angeles Times that a reporter and former intern photographer are protected from having to disclose “unpublished information” about events they witnessed while preparing an article about a Long Beach police task force assigned to the downtown area.

Gerry Ensley, a deputy Long Beach city prosecutor who was joined by the Los Angeles County public defender’s office in bringing the appeal, said the court upheld the intent of voters who added the Shield Law to the state Constitution in 1980.

“I think the Shield Law was never intended to protect news reporters,” Ensley said.

It was intended to protect reporters’ confidential sources, he said.

First Time

Times attorney Rex S. Heinke said the ruling marks the first time that an appellate court has issued a published decision against a reporter seeking protection since the Shield Law became part of the state Constitution.

The ruling takes effect as law 30 days after its issuance.

Times general counsel William A. Niese said a request for a state Supreme Court review is “highly probable.”

Reversing a Superior Court decision, the justices said that news reporters have the same duty as a bystander if called to testify about what they witnessed at a public event.

In cases where reporters are not entrusted with protecting confidential sources, “there is no basis to differentiate the newsperson’s observation of the event from that of any other citizen,” said the opinion written by Justice Robert R. Devich.

“In short, the testimony is wholly unrelated to the Shield Law,” Devich wrote.

He was joined in the ruling by Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer and Justice L. Thaxton Hanson.

Heinke said the message of the ruling for reporters is that “the Shield Law does not protect you, if you see something. There is no protection whatsoever . . . .”

The case arose from the prosecution of a 21-year-old man in Long Beach for possession of brass knuckles.

The man, Sean Patrick Delaney, contends that police officers who confronted him at the Long Beach Plaza mall last Sept. 23 never asked his permission for a search of his jacket pocket, where officers found the weapon.

Times reporter Roxana Kopetman and former intern photographer Roberto Santiago Bertero witnessed the confrontation. Their subsequent news account of the incident did not mention whether officers asked for permission to search Delaney.

Called to the witness stand in Long Beach Municipal Court, Kopetman and Bertero both declined to answer when asked about whether permission was requested. They contended that since the information was not contained in the news article, they were protected from having to answer under the Shield Law.

Both were found in contempt by Judge Elvira S. Austin. Kopetman spent several hours in a courthouse lockup until she was released on $1,000 bail.

Struck Down

Austin’s contempt citation was later struck down by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, who said that the state Constitution protects reporters who refuse to testify.

Niese said that if Thursday’s Court of Appeal ruling stands, “it really cuts the Shield Law in half.”

Besides protecting reporters from having to disclose their sources, Niese said the Shield Law was intended to protect newspeople who act as the public’s surrogates by attending and reporting on public events.

“The purpose of the press is to report on what happens for those who could not be there,” Niese said. “If reporters are converted into automatic witnesses, the ability of reporters to retain their objectivity and be objective witnesses, rather than forced witnesses at every trial, would be seriously undermined.”