Lundquist: College journalists were right to stand up to bullying

Police in Virginia raided the James Madison University newspaper April 16 and seized photographs of an April 10 campus riot to use as evidence. While the police might not have known they were acting unlawfully, the student editor knew, as does every American journalist. But some Virginia attorneys need to learn the hard way about the fierceness, fraternity and freedom of the press.

A few riot photos appeared in the April 12 issue of The Breeze, the student newspaper, after which police pressured the paper to surrender the photos so they could identify the rioters.

The Breeze refused, as was its right.

Perhaps the authorities thought they could play loose with the law because they were dealing with "kids." But college journalists are no different than professionals under the law, and those in law enforcement better bone up on that. Not only that, but most of the time the police cannot force a journalist to turn informant.

And yet, a dozen police showed up in the newsroom a few days later with a search warrant, demanding the photos and threatening to confiscate computers and cameras.

In a tough spot with no legal help, Editor-In-Chief Katie Thisdell complied. But first, the junior tried to stop the police by citing the Privacy Protection Act, which should have protected her newsroom from unlawful search and seizure. Under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, police cannot seize news materials for use in solving a crime if journalists were just observers. Police are required to have a subpoena, which requires a more rigorous process than a search warrant.

Still, the police walked away with 1,000 photos, which they finally surrendered to a neutral party two days later, after The Breeze got legal counsel.

The Privacy Protection Act itself evolved out of a similar situation. In 1971, police got a warrant and searched the student-run Stanford Daily the day after it ran photographs of a riot. The paper charged that its rights protecting freedom of the press and against unlawful search and seizure had been violated. The Supreme Court did not agree. So Congress took matters into its own hands and passed the act so journalists could gather news without fear of government interference.

But apparently the Rockingham County Commonwealth's attorney didn't agree with Congress.

Perhaps attorney Marsha Garst thought she could get away with warped warrants because, unlike Montana, Virginia is one of the few states without a law shielding journalists from having to reveal confidential information when subpoenaed. However, a precedent of protection has persevered in Virginia court rulings.

Shield law or no, reporters still have to be served a subpoena in the first place. That's what Garst didn't get. But she'll learn she overstepped her authority when she is slapped with a fine for violating the Privacy Protection Act.

Guess who's now supporting Garst because he supports "any legal means to gather information?"

Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli. The same man who joined the group of attorneys general suing the government over the health care bill, who is urging state colleges to remove policies banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and who originally supported claims that Obama was ineligible for the presidency, although he now denies it. This is not a man who recognizes reality, let alone what's legal.

To the old saying, "Rules are made to be broken," Garst and Cuccinelli might add, "Especially if you don't agree with them." Like many of a conservative bent, they would rather push unrestrained free enterprise than a free press. Some challenge laws they disagree with by breaking them, then appealing them in the courts. And as long as the news industry is struggling, they appear to think now is the time to strike at its protections, starting with the little guys.