 
Court OKs look at reporters' files
By Janet Kelley And Ad Crable
Lancaster New Era
Mar 10, 2006
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled the state Attorney General’s
Office can search four Lancaster Newspapers Inc. computers as part
of an ongoing investigation.
The investigation, according to court
documents, centers around an allegation that the Lancaster County
coroner gave his computer password to one or more reporters for the
Intelligencer Journal, allowing them access to a restricted law
enforcement Web site.
The Intelligencer Journal is owned by Lancaster Newspapers
Inc., the parent company of the Lancaster New Era and the Sunday
News. Each newspaper has separate and independent staffs.
No charges have been brought against anyone, including the
coroner, Dr. G. Gary Kirchner, or anyone from Lancaster Newspapers.
The matter, which is before a statewide investigative grand
jury, temporarily came to a halt recently when newspaper attorneys
asked the Supreme Court whether prosecutors could search four
reporters’ computers.
The question was resolved on Wednesday when the Supreme Court handed
down a brief, one-page order, saying the newspaper could not appeal
the issue. The ruling, in effect, allows prosecutors to search the
computers.
Two attorneys representing the newspaper expressed
disappointment today at the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“It’s the principle that the government should even have
access to such information,” said William A. DeStefano of
Philadelphia.
“We feel there were significant First Amendment rights that
were at issue,” he said, adding that those arguments were not
considered by the Supreme Court.
Without considering that issue, the court ruled simply that
the newspaper could not appeal the lower court judge’s decision.
Harold E. Miller Jr., president and chief executive officer
of Lancaster Newspapers, said this morning that “Lancaster
Newspapers is very disappointed our appeal was denied. We still
believe this issue involves protections afforded newspapers under
the Pennsylvania Shield Law and the federal Privacy Protection Act.”
Kevin Harley, spokesman for state Attorney General Tom
Corbett, noted that although the documents regarding the Supreme
Court are public, he cannot comment on anything that is before an
investigative grand jury.
The alleged security breach came to prosecutors’ attention
in August, when local officials discovered the restricted Web site
had been accessed from a newspaper computer between 3 and 11 p.m.,
which are the Intell staff members’ designated working hours.
The matter was referred to the state Attorney General’s
Office, which presented it to an investigative grand jury. Although
grand jury matters are closed, documents filed before the Supreme
Court are open to the public.
According to those documents, newspaper attorneys
complained that the paper had cooperated with the investigation —
offering the Attorney General’s investigators printed versions of
certain items they requested, including e-mails.
Newspaper personnel also removed hard drives from four
computers and placed them in a secured location, but Lancaster
Newspaper attorneys objected to a search of those computers, fearing
prosecutors might view other documents and notes unrelated to the
grand jury investigation.
Prosecutors responded that they have special forensic
equipment that would scan the computers only for material relevant
to the Lancaster County-Wide Communications’ Computer Assisted
Dispatch (CAD) Web site.
“The Founding Fathers did not have computers, but they did
have a healthy mistrust of governmental attempts to intrude upon
certain rights,’’ DeStefano wrote.
“Who is going to talk,’’ to newspaper reporters,
DeStefano’s associate, Jayson Wolfgang, asked the court, “if
newspaper computers can be seized and turned over to the
government?’’
Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach, in the
prosecution’s response, added that they believe the newspaper “has
information related to the matter under investigation.’’
In addition, prosecutors wrote that they tried to protect
“against the unnecessary disruption of the newspaper’s operation’’
by not seizing the computers with a search warrant.
Senior Judge Barry F. Feudale, who is presiding over the
grand jury, ruled that he was satisfied with the prosecutor’s
promise that a narrow “inquiry can be made without impacting the
reporters’ privilege and First Amendment privacy concerns of
Lancaster Newspapers.’’
Feudale added that he would personally review all the
material before it is turned over to prosecuting attorneys.
Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, a Lancaster County
resident, did not participate in the matter.
|
