logo SPLC

On Friday, April 16, Garst and several police officers executed a search warrant in the Breeze newsroom, seeking photos of recent rioting in Harrisonburg. They threatened to take computers, cameras and more, and eventually confiscated more than 900 photographs. The photographs have since been given to a third party to hold pending further negotiations between the newspaper and the authorities.

Citing journalistic legal pillars from the First Amendment to the Privacy Protection Act, several editorial boards have used their opinion pages to show support for the student journalists at the Breeze.

The Cavalier Daily, The University of Virginia

"The paper should not have given up the photos, but it is understandable why The Breeze would respond in such a manner: When police officers and the commonwealth's attorney show up threatening to seize files and equipment, it is not difficult to see why editors would be intimidated into giving up the information ...

... Apart from the legal right, there is also a practical justification for newspapers to protect materials and information like photos, anonymous sources and the like. It obviously would threaten a publication's integrity to release such information to law enforcement and certainly would discourage many sources from contributing. Whenever a newspaper photographer shows up to an event, students should not have to feel as though he may be collecting evidence for a future police report."

The Daily Gamecock, University of South Carolina

"Not only did the police have no right to take the photos from the newsroom, but they also came prepared to take the staff's computers, cameras, documents and anything else they wanted if the staff refused to hand over their photos. We understand the whole investigation thing, but they need to understand the whole law thing before taking advantage of a student staff ...

... The Breeze may not be a national newspaper out in ‘the real world,' but if we want our students to be professionals and learn the lessons of a professional environment, they need to be treated as such."

"The First Amendment is not some sort of immunity totem from a reality show, granting journalists the license to do whatever they please without consequence. They cannot, for instance, refuse to disclose the location of a kidnapped child under the guise of being a ‘neutral observer' of the search. Reporters and editors are members of civil society, and have duties to it.

But that goes both ways. Journalism plays a crucial role in a democracy, and in order to do its job well it must be able to exercise certain rights and privileges. It requires independence; it cannot be a mere appendage for other institutions."

"Newspapers, as a matter of course, don't share unedited photos and notes with authorities. A news staff is not an arm of the law; it is supposed to be a neutral observer. Without that implied neutrality, many sources would clam up.

It is not unheard of for a newspaper to provide photos or other information when ordered or asked to, but it is rare for law enforcement to simply seize them, let alone threaten to shut a newspaper down to get what it wants.

Unless, of course, a commonwealth's attorney decides her end justifies any means necessary."

"To some, it wouldn't appear to be a problem for newspapers to share documents and images with police -- especially for the investigation of violent crimes. Very simply, it is a problem however -- because to do so without a legally appropriate subpoena would be to break down a wall that should stand between the press and the government.

The media cannot be construed or used as ‘an arm of law enforcement,' as the Society of Professional Journalists stated when condemning the raid on The Breeze.

When Garst and the police officers walked into the Breeze offices and demanded images to help with their investigation, they went too far. Surely anyone with Garst's experience would understand that the duty to prosecute the law first and foremost means to follow it. Even if a judge finds the photographs should have been handed over, this was poorly handled. Unfortunately these journalism students are getting extra credit in their coursework -- compliments of the justice system."

"There is no excuse for the violence and vandalism that occurred, no matter whether police were on hand or not. And it is no wonder if police initially were unprepared for the dramatic escalation of a party-turned-riot.

But miscalculation in responding to a quickly changing event cannot account for the extraordinary error that occurred one week later when the commonwealth's attorney, armed with a search warrant and accompanied by up to a dozen police officers, descended on the offices the JMU student newspaper, the Breeze, and demanded to remove all photographs of the party ...

... The U.S. Privacy Protection Act makes it unlawful to search newsrooms for unpublished newsgathering materials. In response to a request, the paper already had offered to give copies of published materials to police.

The law does make allowance for special needs. Authorities may obtain a subpoena for newsroom documents or photos if their case rises to a high degree of necessity.

But authorities must by law give the media a reasonable time to reply and to have counsel represent them if desired.

This, the Rockingham County authorities failed to do.

We understand the law enforcement community's desire to identify and prosecute all those responsible for injury and vandalism. We understand the law enforcement community's embarrassment at not controlling the riot more quickly and more effectively, and its desire to make an impact now.

But police and prosecutors are charged with enforcing all the law -- not just the parts they may happen to like. Newsroom files are private property, too, and democracy depends on law enforcement protecting that property as diligently as it seeks to protect a car or a building from a mob."