Why wiretapping a reporter’s calls endangers trust

By Jeff German

Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008 | 2 a.m.

The number of wiretaps authorized by Nevada judges in criminal cases more than doubled last year, far above the nation’s overall hike of 20 percent, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Approvals here jumped from 10 in 2006 to 22 last year, and there’s no reason to believe the numbers won’t rise again in 2008.

When the federal courts release the 2008 wiretapping statistics, my name will be among those whose privacy was invaded “under color of law,” as they say. Turns out I am proof that Clark County authorities, as they are obligated by law, do inform people who have been overheard on wiretaps.

Last month, the district attorney’s office told me by certified mail that Henderson police had intercepted conversations I had with murder suspect Shawn Pritchett in February. I had been investigating the 2006 slaying of Larry Thomas, a College of Southern Nevada auto technology instructor.

Assistant District Attorney Chris Lalli, who oversees wiretap applications made by local law enforcement agencies, was not surprised when I called asking for details about the wiretapping. Reporters generally don’t make the list. This is the first time in 30 years of covering crime and the courts that I have received such a legal notice.

Statistics cited by the federal courts show that calls of 158 Nevadans, all from Clark County, were intercepted by federal and state wiretaps in 2007. That’s up from 71 in 2006.

And a sign of the times: Records show that all of the wiretap orders last year were for cell phones. No home or business land lines were legally wiretapped in Nevada last year.

Anyone receiving a wiretap notice has a right to hear recordings of those calls, Lalli said. So I requested copies, and soon picked up a CD of a dozen calls between Pritchett and me.

Most recordings were of messages Pritchett and I traded between Feb. 8 and Feb. 10 as Henderson police were zeroing in on him in the Thomas slaying. District Judge Stewart Bell had signed an order allowing detectives to secretly monitor Pritchett’s cell phones throughout February.

Four conversations were recorded, including a 32-minute phone interview I did with Pritchett from the Sun office Feb. 9. Pritchett told me he was innocent and being railroaded by police. Parts of that interview were used in a Sun story published after police arrested Pritchett two days later.

After I interviewed Pritchett, I interviewed Henderson detectives just before Pritchett’s arrest. They seemed unusually well-prepared for the interview and knew Pritchett’s side of the story.

In hindsight, it’s obvious detectives had me at a disadvantage.

After I listened to the recording of that 32-minute interview with Pritchett, a conversation that was supposed to be between us, I felt my privacy had been violated.

Today, it bothers me even more knowing this intrusion occurred during the course of my work as a journalist. Reporters strive for independence from government because our role is partly to serve as a watchdog over government. We try to protect the integrity of the information-gathering process, even when it involves a murder suspect.

This case was simple enough — and a suspect has been charged. The temptation is to shrug it off.

But should we?

The answer for one reporter is found in three facts:

• The courts are granting wiretaps more often.

• U.S. history is replete with wiretap abuses, from the Nixon White House down to police agencies.

• Reporters often gather information in sensitive cases, including those involving police abuses, by promising anonymity to whistleblowers — people who would not speak out about wrongdoing if they thought others were listening.