St. Louis Circuit Attorney Subpoenas St. Louis Public Radio
(Updated 3:16 p.m., Fri., Jan. 30)
This afternoon, circuit attorney's office sent over a modified subpoena from the one originally sent Thursday. The modified subpoena is limiting its request to video and audio materials related to the Public Safety Committee of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on Jan. 28. The request for written notes and the names of witnesses has been withdrawn.
(Updated on 1/30 with comments from Jennifer Joyce)
In the aftermath of the disruption that ended an aldermanic hearing on a civilian review board, St. Louis Public Radio received a subpoena from the St. Louis circuit attorney for “all raw and aired video and audio footage of the meeting of the Public Safety Committee of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on January 28, 2015, including footage of interviews, the meeting itself and any events that occurred in the meeting room or in the area outside the meeting room.”
The subpoena further said, “You are requested not to disclose the existence of this subpoena.”
As the station considers the subpoena, editor Margaret Wolf Freivogel said, “We believe that to subpoena information from news organizations raises an important public issue. While the subpoena ‘requests’ that we not disclose its existence, it does not assert a legal obligation, and we don’t believe one exists.”
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-circuit-attorney-subpoenas-st-louis-public-radio
Editor's Weekly: Why St. Louis Public Radio Should Not Have Been Subpoenaed
The subpoena served on St. Louis Public Radio Thursday is both baffling and disturbing.
It arrived the day after the Board of Aldermen's Public Safety Committee hearing devolved into shouting and shoving. The topic under discussion was a plan for a civilian review board for police. Police union representative Jeff Roorda, accompanied by union members, was among those present when the scuffle broke out. No arrests were made at the meeting, but police announced Thursday they would investigate complaints.
The subpoena commands us to provide: “All raw and aired video and audio footage of the meeting ... including footage of interviews, the meeting itself and any events that occurred in the meeting room or in the area outside the meeting room. We are further requesting any and all handwritten notes and/or names of witnesses contained in said footage, coverage and articles from January 28, 2015 to the present,” it says.
Then it asks us to keep the whole thing mum, saying: “Pursuant to Sections 540.110 and 540.120, RSMo, you are requested not to disclose the existence of this subpoena or that you have provided information pursuant to this subpoena. Such disclosure would impede investigation at this time.” Those statutes relate to secrecy of grand jury proceedings and do not require that subpoenas be kept secret.
What's baffling is this: Why subpoena a news organization for information when this was a public meeting with many witnesses present, including several police officers? Why assert that public disclosure of the subpoena would impede the investigation when the investigation was publicly announced?
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/editors-weekly-why-st-louis-public-radio-should-not-have-been-subpoenaed
= new reply since forum marked as read
