By Carlos Miller
A 22-year-old journalism student who apparently witnessed a murder – and might even have photographs that would help police identify the killer – is fighting police attempts to obtain the photos.
The San Francisco student is claiming he is protected under California’s shield law, which allows reports to withhold unpublished information from police.
Police claim the shield law does not protect him because he is not affiliated with a news agency.
A hearing is scheduled for June 24, which will determine the outcome.
Meanwhile, the student has gone into hiding because he fears for his life. And the judge has sealed his identity to protect him.
The murder occurred on April 17th as the San Francisco State journalism student was documenting life in a predominantly black neighborhood in east San Francisco.
He was with a black 21-year-old business student named Norris Bennett, whom he had been following for months.
Bennett was playing a dice game on a street corner when he was gunned down. The student then called Bennett’s family, crying, telling them to come to the scene.
When police arrived on the scene, they saw the student taking photos of paramedics treating Bennett. When they tried to interview him, he declined.
On May 3, police obtained a warrant and searched his apartment, looking for the photographs and other evidence. They seized some items but it is not clear if they obtained the photographs.
The student has not returned to the apartment and has not been communicating with police. He is being represented pro bono by an attorney who works with the San Francisco State journalism department.
The case once again brings up the debate of who is a journalist and who is not a journalist.
In an era when anybody can publish their content on the internet for the world to see, the lines have become increasingly muddled.
In fact, a bill titled the Free Flow of Information Act 2009 seeks to define journalists by solely those who make a living off it.
However, the issue is much more complex than that now that newspapers are starting to use blogger feeds as part of their online features, and that virtually everyone has some type of recording device with them at all times.
As we saw in the case of the U.S. Airways plane landing in the Hudson River, anyone can be published worldwide instantly by just being at the right place at the right time.
Or as in the case of the journalism student, at the wrong place at the wrong time.
To me, the solution is simple. The photos surrounding the murder must be published.
That is what journalists do, after all. Shed light on the truth.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
14 responses so far ↓
1 ALL BE DAMNED // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Very well Writen Carlos Good to see you ontop of great stories like this one
Thanks for the Insite of TRUE “everyones ” journalism
2 Bran // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I see avoiding the police as a worthy goal in most cases. In the western police states it is not safe to become involved with “law enforcement.”
On the other hand withholding evidence of a murder strikes me as contrary to the values of a free society.
Independent or paid publication of the images seems to solve both issues for me.
3 10-8 // Jun 16, 2009 at 7:55 PM
The student is an idiot, plain and simple.
4 Michaelk42 // Jun 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I always thought the point of shield laws was
1. To bar police from “fishing expeditions” for evidence of possible crimes
2. Keep police from seizing work materials to prevent publishing of information
3. Help keep a line between being a journalist and an agent of law enforcement
Or at least those seem to be the three best reasons to me.
I don’t think it really functions to protect a journalist from retribution for publishing, however.
It sucks that people might come after you for what you publish, but at least in this case it’s not the police trying to exact retribution for publishing.
@10-8 Thanks for the useful addition to the conversation, fake cop troll. At least the kid is smart enough to know the cops can’t and more than likely won’t protect him.
5 Carlos Miller // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:14 PM
From what I gather, the student is simply scared that he is going to get whacked if he turns the photos over to police.
Otherwise, they would have been published already.
The Shield Law is supposed to allow a reporter to protect his sources.
That is not the case here.
Obviously, this guy is not cut out to be a journalist, I’m sorry to say.
6 Frank Palmer // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Speaking of court cases… Carlos any updates on your case?
7 Carlos Miller // Jun 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Hey Frank,
I’ve been meaning to update that. The judges reviewed my appeal on June 10th and decided that the record was incomplete, meaning that I did not provide the entire transcript.
All I did was provide the portions that pertained to my argument, which I argued in my appeal that it should be acceptable.
So now I have 30 days to get the entire trial transcribed, which I will do but it’s going to cost around $3,000.
I was hoping to avoid this but in reality, it will just make my case that much stronger.
Here are all the arguments in case you haven’t seen them.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/03/30/the-moment-of-judgment-has-arrived/
8 Michaelk42 // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM
@Carlos
So… essentially they just tape the whole trial, and only transcribe it if someone appeals… and make the appellant foot the bill?
9 Carlos Miller // Jun 17, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Yep. They hire a private company to record the trial, so I have to go through them.
Fortunately, they are on my side in this case because they all happen to be photographers.
But the trial ran for two days and the price is normally five bucks a page, six bucks a page for a rush job, so even if they do give me a slight discount, is still very expensive.
10 genewitch // Jun 17, 2009 at 7:14 AM
10-8: cause law enforcement is in the “catching criminals” business, right?
if you’re really 10-8 why the hell are you posting here? Your nickname is retarded, and if you are law enforcement, you should be ashamed of yourself.
11 Gabriel // Jun 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I thought this was an interesting take on the situation.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB124283788839939877.html
12 Michaelk42 // Jul 18, 2009 at 7:10 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/16/MNFC18PI1J.DTL
“‘We’re just going to try to find another angle – we’re just going to find some witnesses who aren’t cowards, like this student is, hiding behind the shield law,’ said Lt. Mike Stasko of the police homicide detail.”
I think that’s going to be nominee for douchebag quote of the year so far. (Easy for Stasko to say, hiding behind his badge, gun, body armor, and 24/7 radio-dispatched backup.)
13 Rusty Carr // Apr 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM
@10-8, You are completely off base.
14 capn_amurka // Apr 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Lt. Mike Stasko thinks that it is cowardly to hide behind laws designed to protect one’s self, family, and property from potential retaliation. Perhaps it would be instructive to call upon Lt. Mike Stasko to either 1) surrender the protection of those similar laws that protect him, for example by revealing his home address or 2) explain why his own standards don’t make him both a coward and a hypocrite.
Leave a Comment