Editorial: Weakening the state’s ‘shield law’

Thursday, April 29, 1999 | 11:56 a.m.

The Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision earlier this month which, if left intact, could jeopardize the media's effectiveness in gathering information and providing news to the public. The court said the state's "shield law" does not protect a reporter from answering questions about a story he wrote. Nevada's "shield law" not only protects a reporter from being forced to reveal his sources, but also is supposed to prevent him from being called to testify in civil or criminal cases.

The case the Supreme Court based its ruling on originated from an automobile accident in Clark County in 1996 in which five people were killed. Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Glenn Puit wrote a story about the accident, quoting Highway Patrol Trooper Steve Harney. The surviving relatives filed a wrongful death suit against the state, Highway Patrol and others. The trooper was questioned by attorneys for the survivors, but Harney said he couldn't remember whether he had made the statements attributed to him by Puit. In an effort to determine whether Harney made those statements that were published, the survivors' attorneys sought to question Puit.

District Court Judge Mark Gibbons ruled that Puit didn't have to testify, noting that Nevada law protects a reporter from disclosing any "published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by such person in such person's professional capacity in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication." The law is so clear that it is inconceivable anyone could reach an interpretation that would compel a reporter to testify.

But in a 2-1 decision (Justice Bill Maupin dissented because he didn't believe the court's intervention was warranted at the time), Justices Deborah Agosti and Nancy Becker wrote that published information is not privileged and, therefore, Puit must testify. The court's opinion ignores the plain language of the statute that says both unpublished and published information is protected.

Kent Lauer, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, said that Nevadans are fortunate our Legislature recognizes the need to have a strong "shield law," considered to be one of the strongest in the nation. We agree with Lauer's belief that the Supreme Court's ruling softens the "shield law." In effect, this ruling would turn reporters into agents for government or private attorneys, a role at odds with an independent and vigorous free press. In addition, instead of gathering news, reporters could end up spending much of their days testifying in court about any on-the-record statements made to them that appear in the newspaper.

The justices should grant a rehearing of the case. Hopefully after re-examining the law and the impact of the decision, they will reaffirm the state's "shield law."