Indybay, a local news collective represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, won its fight against a San Francisco Police Department search warrant and gag order today.
Despite shield laws protecting journalists and news organizations from being compelled to testify about their newsgathering and sourcing, the SFPD issued a warrant for the news website as part of an investigation into a January vandalism incident at the San Francisco Police Credit Union. A gag order lifted by a judge today revealed that now-voided warrant.
On Jan. 18, an unidentified person under the name “some anarchists,” released a post on Indybay, which publishes community-sourced news from the public, claiming credit for smashing several windows at the San Francisco Police Credit Union that day. The vandalism was purportedly “vengeance” for Tortuguita, an activist shot and killed by police in Atlanta, Georgia, while he reportedly had his hands raised.
A few days later, police sought and obtained a search warrant ordering Indybay to turn over text messages, online identifiers like associated IP addresses, and other information that could reveal the author of the post. The warrant also ordered Indybay not to speak about the matter for 90 days.
Indybay fought the warrant. Ultimately, email records show that the SFPD changed course and decided not to pursue the warrant on Jan. 31, the date of the deadline to comply.
“When SFPD Chief Bill Scott was made aware of the warrant, he immediately ordered officers to not pursue it over questions about possible First Amendment and Freedom of the Press issues,” said a statement issued by the SFPD today.
Mario Trujillo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented Indybay, said in an interview with Mission Local that the case was an instance of “dropping the ball” on the part of both the police who requested the warrant and the judge who signed it.
“Indybay’s experience highlights a worrying police tactic of demanding unpublished source material from journalists, in violation of clearly established shield laws,” read a statement from Trujillo. “Warrants like the one issued by the police invade press autonomy, chill news gathering, and discourage sources from contributing.”
The police department has indicated that it will not seek another warrant from Indybay in this investigation. Indybay released documents regarding the case today after San Francisco Superior Court Judge Linda Colfax lifted the gag order that accompanied the warrant.
Trujillo said the fact that Indybay was ever subjected to such a search warrant is concerning, and said the warrant and gag order “should never have been signed by the court.” This is not the first time Indybay has come out on top in a legal battle with police: Indybay photojournalist David Morse won a case against an unlawful search warrant by University of California, Berkeley, police in 2010.
The SFPD came under scrutiny in 2019 after officers raided the home of Bryan Carmody, an independent journalist who had obtained police documents related to former Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death. Carmody had declined to reveal his confidential sources to police, and they later forcibly entered and searched his home. The city later paid him a hefty $369,000 settlement.
After the Carmody incident, the police department agreed to make efforts to ensure California’s Shield Law is adhered to by SFPD officers.
But a statement from the police department today called the January vandalism case an “unusual circumstance” that “brings up interesting questions about the Shield Law and the scope of its protections.”
SFPD policy specifically references the Reporters’ Shield Law and its ban on issuance of search warrants seeking unpublished information in newsgathering and/or confidential source information from news organizations.
Police are required under department policy to ensure that their warrant applications indicate whether an individual may be protected by shield laws.
The Indybay warrant includes no references to Indybay being a news site. Trujillo, for his part, said the person who posted on Indybay is not necessarily covered by shield laws, but that Indbay, as a news organization subject to the warrant, is.
And, in cases where shield law protections may apply, signoff by the Assistant Chief or Chief of Police is required under SFPD policy.
It is unclear whether this process was followed. The SFPD’s statement today said Police Chief Bill Scott rolled back the warrant when he learned of it, implying he was not initially aware of the warrant when it was first issued by a police investigator.
Trujillo said that Indybay was only able to successfully fight off the warrant by “pretty forcefully” urging the SFPD to drop it.
“While this is a victory, Indybay … would have had to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight the warrant without pro bono counsel,” Trujillo said. “Other small news organization[s] might not be so lucky.”
and this city voted to give sfpd even less public accountability. shame.
That’s not really how search warrants work. A search warrant, once signed by a judge, is valid for ten days. If it is not served within that time, it is considered void. The headline suggests the police took some action to undo what they did. I don’t think that’s accurate. They just decided not not act on the still valid warrant and let the clock run out. The headline gives them too much credit. I was wondering where that language came from, as I’ve never heard of a warrant being voided by anything other than the passage of time. I found that language in a SFPD press release. I hope missionlocal didn’t just borrow and repeat the inaccurate language produced by spfd, that would be disconcerting. But it does appear that’s what happened here.
No in words or subpoenas which this is more likely what it is in regarding information and news agencies or you know collected information from sources stuff that you have to you know compile and it will take time to gather they’ll usually hand the warrant to the interested party and they’ll have a certain amount of time to comply with said warrant or subpoena and if they don’t comply then they’ll be held in contempt or charged with you know not complying with the commands of law enforcement officer etc etc but if it was in regards to a specific person or a specific article of property in a specific location then you would be correct in the passing of time part of it.
Is there any crime for which a warrant would for information about a perpetrator claiming to have committed it would be valid? How about announced intention to commit a crime?
Many lawyers have such information about their clients. But attorney client conversations are privileged. Should they be – or as you ask, is there any crime that that would justify voiding that privilege?
Are you asking only about “cleaning up” the streets and going after vandals, or do you also wonder how soon we’ll be able to lock up the real criminals? The latter includes Trump and many other politicians, Chevron, PG and E, and other corporate executives, a slew of CIA operatives, and a large swath of the US military.
“How about announced intention to commit a crime?”
That falls under Exigent Circumstance and depends on the plausibility and gravity of the crime.
Here’s one way to find out. I hereby announce that I intend to commit a crime. Now let’s see what happens . . .