Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] feb shutterbug
From: SthRosner@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:40:41 EST

In a message dated 1/4/02 11:50:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
bdcolen@earthlink.net writes:

> > What about newspaper reporters who have information (like specifics about
>  a
>  > hit or a robbery), aren't they protected from revealing their sources, 
and
>  > the details of the information, per se?  I guess one could make a
>  convoluted
>  > argument for protection?
>  
>  That protection varies from state to state. And, if I am not mistaken, the
>  protection  generally doesn't apply when what one is protecting is evidence
>  of a crime. It is more often an issue that arrises in civil actions.
>  

Let's be very careful about these issues. I've been practicing law for over 
40 years, for 30 of them involved in issues of legal ethics. What I believe 
you all are interested in here is the legal concept of privilege. Privilege 
is a rule of evidence, i.e. whether a court (judge) will permit to be 
introduced in a trial evidence, otherwise credible and relevant, because it 
is subject to a privilege (not to disclose). 

Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution - and all State Constitutions - protects 
us against self-incrimination, i.e. a statement I make indicating that I have 
committed a crime, cannot be used against me in a criminal prosecution. That 
is what many call *taking the Fifth*, i.e. claiming the protection of the 
Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. This is a privilege that must be 
claimed at the time, i.e, it will be waived if not claimed.

Communications between a client and her lawyer are protected by the 
attorney-client privilege, i.e. the lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose or 
testify as to those communications. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to 
protect client information that is broader than the lawyer-client privilege 
but it gets complicated to explain that briefly.

HOWEVER, what I think most of you have been talking about here is a 
photographer witnessing a PUBLIC EVENT. As to that, there is no privilege 
whatever. And if you have photographed a public event that may be a crime and 
you refuse to hand over that film, you may well be exposing yourself to a 
charge of withholding crucial evidence and obstruction of justice. As a 
matter of property law, that film belongs to the photographer but law 
enforcement is entitled to use it as evidence.

In addition, some writers here are failing to distinguish between the 
information or document itself and the source. The press has always been 
concerned and careful to protect its sources and correctly so. But I am 
doubtful that any evidentiary privilege exists in this case. And there are 
cases where a court has ordered a newsperson to disclose a source and stuck 
him in the can for contempt for failure to comply.  

Seth            LaK 9
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html