44 Mo. L. Rev. 297 (1979)
Search of the Newsroom: The Battle for a Reporter's Privilege Moves to New Ground

handle is hein.journals/molr44 and id is 307 raw text is: SEARCH OF THE NEWSROOM: THE
BATTLE FOR A REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE
.MOVES TO NEW GROUND
The resolve of the press to advance claims of constitutional immunity
to subpoenas' and the presence of shield laws protecting the confidentiali-
ty of news sources2 have led law enforcement officials to seek new ways of
acquiring information from uncooperative journalists.3 One resort has
1. See, e.g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972); United States v.
Steelhammer, 539 F.2d 373 (4th Cir. 1976); Herbert v. Lando, 73 F.R.D. 387
(S.D.N.Y. 1977); Gilbert v. Allied Chemical Corp., 411 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Va.
1976); Apel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976); Branzburg v. Pound, 461
S.W.2d 345 (Ky. 1970).
2. Twenty-six states now have shield laws limiting forced disclosure of jour-
nalists' confidential sources and information. ALA. CODE tit. 7, § 370 (1960);
ALASKA STAT. § 09.25.150-.220 (1973); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 12-2237 (West
Supp. 1974-75); ARK. STAT. ANN. § 43-917 (1977); CAL. EVID. CODE § 1070
(West Supp. 1978) DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10., §§ 4320-4326 (Supp. 1974); ILL.
ANN. STAT. ch. 51, §§ 111-119 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1978); IND. CODE§ 34-3-5-1
(1971), IND. CODE ANN. § 2-1733 (Burns Supp. 1973); KY. REV. STAT. § 421.100
(1970); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45.1451-.1454 (West Supp. 1978); MD. CTS. &
JUD. PROD. CODE ANN. § 9-112 (1971); MICH. STAT. ANN. § 28.945(1) (1972);
MINN. STAT. ANN. § 595.021-.025 (Supp. 1976); MONT. REV. CODES ANN. §
93.601-1 to .601-2, .701-4.8 (1964 & Supp. 1973); NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 20-144 to
-147 (Supp. 1974); NEV. REV. STAT. § 49.275 (1975); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:84A-
21 to -28 (1976); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 20-1-12.1 (Supp. 1975); N.Y. CIV. RIGHTS
LAW § 79-h (McKinney Supp. 1978-79); N.D. CENT. CODE § 31-01-06.2 (Supp.
1977); OHIO REV. CODEANN. § 2739.12 (1954); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 2506
(Supp. 1978-79); OR. REV. STAT. § 44.510-.540 (1977); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 28, §
330 (Purdon Supp. 1978-79); R.I. GEN. LAWS ANN. § 9-19.1-1 to -3 (Supp.
1975); TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 24-113 to -115 (Supp. 1975).
For a comparative analysis of all but the Oklahoma act, see Comment,
Newsman's Priilege Two Years After Branzburg v. Hayes: The First Amend-
ment in Jeopardy, 49 TUL. L. REV. 417 (1975). Congress has enacted no statute
giving reporters a testimonial privilege in federal court, but the Department of
Justice has issued guidelines regulating employee requests for issuance of sub-
poenas to members of the news media. All such requests must have the express
authorization of the Attorney General. Department of Justice Order 544-73, 28
C.F.R. § 50.10 (1977). However, failure of a department official to obtain
authorization is no defense to a subpoena. See In re Horn, 458 F.2d 468, 473 (3d
Cir. 1972).
3. California police admittedly used the search technique because they
feared that the Daily would be uncooperative, and that a subpoena would give
unnecessary notice resulting in delayed acquisition of the evidence sought.
Brief for Petitioners at 18-20, Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978).
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press claims that Calfornia law en-
forcement officials utilized this method to avoid the state's shield law. 6 PRESS
CENSORSHIP NEWSLETTER 30 (1975).

297

What Is HeinOnline?

With comprehensive coverage of government documents and more than 2,400 journals from inception on hundreds of subjects such as political science, criminal justice, and human rights, HeinOnline is an affordable option for colleges and universities. Documents have the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?