Justices change stand on shield law

Wednesday, June 2, 1999 | 11:31 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Tuesday withdrew its previous decision that the state's shield law does not protect a Las Vegas newspaper reporter from answering certain questions about a story he wrote.

A panel of the court said the full seven members will consider the case later.

A three-judge panel ruled April 13 that reporter Glenn Puit of the Las Vegas Review-Journal could be required to answer questions about a story he wrote about an automobile accident. But the panel added the reporter does not have to give up additional information such as tape recordings or notes taken during an interview for the article.

Puit asked the court for a re-hearing. Two members of the court also requested the issue be heard by the full court.

The April 13 order was vacated and the case referred to the full court.

The case arose out of an automobile accident in Clark County in September 1996 when five people were killed. The surviving relatives sued the state, the Nevada Highway Patrol, the towing company and other unnamed individuals.

Puit wrote a story about the accident quoting Highway Patrol Trooper Steve Harney, who was public information officer at the time.

Harney, when questioned by attorneys for the survivors, said he could not remember whether he had made those statements. The lawyers claim several of Harney's statements are relevant to whether the state and the Highway Patrol were liable in the case. And his statements were at odds with the version of other law enforcement officials.

In an effort to impeach Harney's testimony at a trial, attorneys sought to take a deposition from Puit. He refused to answer questions, citing the shield law that allows a reporter to refuse to disclose in any legal action, trial or investigation, "any published or unpublished information" obtained in gathering the story or the source of that information.

The privilege is waived if the reporter voluntarily discloses most of the information.

District Judge Mark Gibbons agreed Puit did not have to answer any questions. But the Supreme Court, in a 2-1 decision, modified the ruling.

The court said attorneys could question Puit whether Harney had made those statements and if the story accurately reflected the comments.