Supreme Court to Rule on 2 Key Press ‘Shield’ Cases

The state Supreme Court, in a pivotal test of the “newsman’s shield law,” agreed Thursday to decide whether journalists can be forced to disclose unpublished information they acquire covering an event that occurs in public.

The justices, in brief orders, announced they would hear two cases that could determine the scope of protections for reporters that were enacted into the state Constitution by the voters in 1980.

In one case, a Los Angeles Times reporter and photographer refused to testify about an arrest they witnessed while accompanying police who were patrolling a Long Beach shopping mall.

In the other case, the Santa Barbara News-Press declined to turn over unpublished photographs of an auto accident at a highway off-ramp to the defendants in a civil suit resulting from the crash.

At issue is whether the shield law was intended to allow journalists to refuse to provide any unpublished information or only information that they obtain from confidential sources. Thus far, state appellate courts have appeared divided on the question.

The constitutional provision, modeled after a pre-existing state statute, says journalists may not be held in contempt for failing to disclose sources of information “or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared” in gathering news.

Rex S. Heinke of Los Angeles, an attorney for The Times representing the reporter and photographer, expressed hope that the justices would overturn a state Court of Appeal ruling that said the journalists could not invoke the law in refusing to testify.

“It would be a disastrous turn of affairs if the appeal court ruling were upheld,” Heinke said. “It would mean reporters would be subject to subpoenas at the whim of any party that wanted their unpublished information.”

However, Albert J. Menaster, a Los Angeles County deputy public defender who urged that the appellate court ruling be upheld, said the law was intended only to protect journalists’ confidential sources, not to permit them to withhold accounts of public events.

“The reporters here are asking for a privilege that is denied to every other citizen, including a justice of the Supreme Court or even the President of the United States,” Menaster said.

The Long Beach case arose in September, 1987, when Times reporter Roxana Kopetman and photographer Roberto Santiago Bertero, while working on a story, witnessed police search and arrest Sean P. Delaney, 21, for the possession of brass knuckles.

In a move to suppress the evidence, Delaney contended that he had not consented to the search and that the seizure of the weapon was illegal because police had lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he was armed.

Both the defense and prosecution sought to require Kopetman and Bertero to testify on whether the defendant had consented to the search, an aspect of the arrest that Kopetman had not included in a story she wrote about the police patrol of the mall. Both refused to testify, citing the shield law.

A Municipal Court judge held that the shield law did not apply to eyewitness observations and cited the journalists for contempt. Kopetman spent six hours in jail before being released by a Superior Court judge.

Last summer, a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld the contempt finding in a 2-1 vote, holding that journalists have the same duty as any other bystander summoned to testify about an event that occurs in public.

Neutral Observer

If the appeal court ruling is upheld, they warned, reporters could become frequent witnesses for one side or the other, undermining the public perception of the press as a neutral observer. Also, they said, litigants would try to use reporters as free private investigators.

The Santa Barbara case arose in June, 1984, when a News-Press photographer took pictures of an accident between two vehicles in which the driver of a van was severely injured. The victim, in a suit against the state and the dealer and manufacturer of the van, sought the newspaper’s unpublished photos of the accident to use as evidence.

The paper refused, citing the shield law. Last June, a state Court of Appeal in Ventura ruled unanimously in favor of the News-Press, holding that the newsman’s privilege gives “absolute protection” against being required to disclose unpublished information in a civil lawsuit in which the journalist is not a party.

In an appeal to the state Supreme Court, attorneys for Volkswagen of America Inc., one of the defendants, argued that the shield law’s protections did not apply where there was no confidential source involved and news gathering functions were not impeded.

In other actions Thursday, the justices:

- Let stand an appeal court ruling that reversed the involuntary manslaughter conviction of a Sacramento man who shot and killed a fleeing burglar who attempted a nighttime entry to the man’s apartment. The appeal court said that under an 1872 law, private citizens may use deadly force to stop an escaping felon, even if he does not present an immediate threat of bodily harm. The high court, while leaving the appellate decision intact, said the ruling could not be used as precedent in other cases.

- Agreed to decide whether a Santa Rosa man may sue his wife’s lawyer for assigning an important report in their divorce case to a psychologist with whom the lawyer reportedly was romantically involved. The husband said the psychologist’s report was biased against him and contributed to his being denied reasonable visitation rights with his children.

- Said they would rule whether a parole officer can be sued for failing to warn a San Jose woman she was in danger shortly before she was killed by a paroled murderer. Lawyers for the dead woman’s family said the parole officer had lulled the victim into a false sense of security, even though he had heard threats by the parolee against the woman’s life.