Judge rules media outlets have to turn over images, footage of May Seattle protest that turned viole

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

A King County, Wash., judge on Thursday ruled five news outlets must turn over unpublished photos and footage from a May 30 Seattle protest for social and racial justice to the city's police department.

King County Superior Court Judge Nelson Lee on Thursday morning ruled the department’s subpoena was enforceable and that the materials were necessary for its investigation of alleged theft of Seattle Police Department (SPD) guns and burning of SPD vehicles after the protest turned violent, according to the Seattle Times.

...snip...

The suspects police are seeking allegedly damaged six vehicles, smashing windows and stealing equipment. The subpoena is seeking footage and photos from a 90-minute period in a four-block area.

Lee ruled that while the outlets were not protected by the state shield law, which governs the circumstances in which authorities can seek unpublished materials from journalists, police could only use the materials to identify suspects in the alleged arsons and theft of the guns. They could not pursue other crimes if the materials contain evidence of other wrongdoing, according to the newspaper.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/508839-judge-rules-media-outlets-have-to-turn-over-images-footage-of-may

[I_UndergroundPanther]

1. Why are they saying

They have to give it to them? They could copy it off social media. Trying to cover up or censor it?

I am suspicious.

[PatSeg]

2. They want unpublished photos and footage

which sounded suspicious to me, but the media outlets can just make copies of that material.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

3. I think if they go after individuals

Footage they should copy it too and put it online.

[PatSeg]

4. They may end up finding

more than they need or want. I have no doubt there were some bad actors who caused damage, but they may also discover wrong-doing from their own police, something we know happened.

[quakerboy]

8. Almost certainly

But as we have seen time after time, the chances they will act on the self incriminating evidence they find are minimal.

[PatSeg]

17. Yes, that's true

[lagomorph777]

25. The arsonists are going to turn out to be right-wing hires.

It's good to go after them, as long as they don't also go after moms, etc.

[PatSeg]

29. Oh yes

We know there are people who are there to provoke violence and make the protesters look bad. That tactic has been around almost every protest over the years. I remember Nixon's FBI infiltrating left-wing groups trying to push them to violence so they could arrest them.

[quakerboy]

30. The video on those will invariably be to grainy to identify people on.

[apnu]

14. They are looking for data to punish protesters and cover up their wrong doing

They want evidence so they can find and punish protesters, and/or parade evidence around that the protesters were violent to them to justify their thuggery. Or, conversely through the magic of "qualified immunity" (and other extra legal protections), they are looking for evidence of their own crimes so they can legally bury it.

[zentrum]

16. That's it.

[DallasNE]

21. Most People Are Missing The Point, But Not You

Substitute whistleblower for protesters and I am sure the tune would change. Here the police are just going on a fishing expedition looking for a possible crime. You know the selective release would not be balanced. It would be self-serving so I don't know what so many posting here are thinking. I think this Judge is way off base with their ruling and hope it is appealed.

[DallasNE]

6. There Goes Another Chunk Of The 1st Amendment.

Or is it the last chunk? The press isn't an arm of the police department. I expect they will appeal.

[cstanleytech]

10. The 1st only protects the press as far as reporting the news it does not protect them from

being required to turn over evidence for a crime that occurred out in public view for all to see.
It would be a different story though if the case was about trying to get them to turn over the name of a confidential source.

[reACTIONary]

13. Exactly right nt

[DallasNE]

22. That Is Not What Is Happening Here

They are not looking for evidence of "a crime" but are going on a fishing expedition looking for activity that might be considered a crime. If law enforcement is successful here then news reporters will become targets in future demonstrations and you effectively have no 1st Amendment free press. Now if an interview was taking place on camera when a car speeds by and strikes and kills a pedestrian a block away then "a crime" has been committed and the video could provide a license plate number then that needs to be turned over and I am sure it would voluntarily be turned over. That is not what is going on here. The restrictions the Judge put on are no where near tight enough so abuse would clearly take place. Nice straw man you toss out though.

[cstanleytech]

24. Even if that is true I suspect the courts will not care as what was recorded was still

out in view for all the public to see or something along those lines.

[jb5150]

7. Like the cops willingly hand over the body cam footage?

Fuck them, stall them ... make them sue to get it, and them tell them you slipped and it accidentally fell into the shredder.

[cstanleytech]

11. While I certaintly support requiring body cam footage to be released

(only edited as far as private information might be revealed about the officers when not on a call such as their bank account or credit card information) that is not the topic at hand at the moment.
The topic is if reporters should be required to turn over relevant photographic and video taped evidence of a crime that they may have witnessed out in public view like anyone else would be required.

[jb5150]

18. Perhaps I was a little overzealous with my comment ...

But you'll forgive me if I don't trust the motives of the police, and haven't for a long time.

[cstanleytech]

20. No problem and I do understand and agree that there is a problem with

a number of police departments.

[cstanleytech]

9. Makes sense to be honest to require them to turn it over as it is something anyone would be

required to do.
Mind you if it was an issue of a confidential informant then that is another thing but this is a case of them recording someone breaking the law out in public view.

[oldsoftie]

12. I agree. Especially showing guns being stolen; those people need to be caught.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Sunshine will find the truth

perps or provocateurs.

The light of day holds all accountable.

[Devil Child]

19. Agreed, if there were provocateurs at work this evidence may help locate and expose them

[stillcool]

23. oh...well they're only going to use materials.

to identify suspects in the alleged arson and theft of guns. Anything else they find, they are going to pretend they didn't see.

[cstanleytech]

26. No, they can and probably will use anything else they might run across but that is normal.

For example say in a case regarding embezzlement a warrant is issued to a company for the computers to be examined and while examining the computer for financial records the investigators find evidence that someone was watching child porn.
Now even though it is not related to the embezzlement case that is being investigated the person that was viewing that can and will be charged for it.

[stillcool]

27. It's right there in the article...

Lee ruled that while the outlets were not protected by the state shield law, which governs the circumstances in which authorities can seek unpublished materials from journalists, police could only use the materials to identify suspects in the alleged arsons and theft of the guns. They could not pursue other crimes if the materials contain evidence of other wrongdoing, according to the newspaper.

[cstanleytech]

28. I would not count on that because almost anything can be appealed.