logo SPLC

The commonwealth will pay $10,000 in attorney's fees incurred in a dispute over the seizure of Breeze photographs taken at a street festival that resulted in a riot in April. Marsha Garst, the Commonwealth's Attorney, issued an apology today and acknowledged the authorities' mistakes in the initial investigation.

The dispute began when Garst executed a search warrant in The Breeze's newsroom on the morning of April 16, burning more than 900 photos onto a CD -- only some of which documented the April 10 "Springfest" of interest to the authorities.

Garst announced today that, after negotiations, The Breeze will only turn over 20 photographs. The newspaper will publish these photographs on its website. Garst said that her focus, as well as that of the other authorities, was not to cause commotion for The Breeze, but simply to obtain the photographs necessary for identifying violent persons at the riot.

"As a prosecutor, officer of the court, and elected official of the community, I recognize the concerns of the Breeze and its staff, as well as other media sources, for the protection of the Constitution and First Amendment," Garst said today in her announcement. "I express my regret for the fear and concern that I caused the Breeze and its staff."

Editor-in-chief for the Breeze Katie Thisdell said she feels Garst's announcement was satisfactory.

" I am pleased that the Commonwealth's Attorney has expressed regret over the fear and concern caused by the seizure," she said.

Student Press Law Center volunteer attorney Seth Berlin, from the law firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, who represented The Breeze, said the Privacy Protection Act mandates that materials from a newspaper be gathered by way of a subpoena, not search warrant, so that the publication has time to bring a challenge.

Frank LoMonte, Student Press Law Center executive director, said the important thing about this case is that it emphasizes that there's a right way and a wrong way to gather information from newsrooms.

"The right way is to seek a subpoena, which gives the journalists a fair opportunity to get in front of a judge and make their best argument as to why the materials might be privileged," LoMonte said. "The Privacy Protection Act specifically references the subpoena process, and that's clearly the authorized way of going about it."

Garst said today that "absent an imminent need to prevent the loss of life or the threat of bodily injury," any information being sought from a publication will be done through the proper process of a subpoena.

"Out of the unfortunate raid in April, this is actually a great result for the newspaper and its students, because they basically succeeded in narrowing dramatically the number of photographs that would need to be turned over to the commonwealth," Berlin said. "And [the paper] has secured what I think is the most important thing -- an acknowledgement that this may not have been the way to go, and that she [Garst] won't do it this way in the future."

The photographs seized during the April 16 raid were turned over to a third party, where they have remained since April. Thisdell said the compact discs of the 962 photos seized have been returned to the Breeze.

"I'm glad we were able to solve this informally through discussions with the commonwealth attorney, and I'm especially grateful for our attorney and all the hard work he put into this for us," Thisdell said. "We are also pleased that local law enforcement officials have pledged that in the future, they will use the subpoena process. This will allow news organizations, such as we did here, to negotiate over the scope of the request."

By Sommer Ingram, SPLC staff writer