Blogger May Test Shield Law

Subpoena Would Mark First Case by Non-traditional Media

A criminal investigation of a leak at the Memphis Police Department may test the state law that grants journalists the right to protect their sources.
Blogger Thaddeus Matthews has become involved in a probe into who provided him with a draft statement from Dexter D. Cox, the 18-year-old charged with the murder of police officer Edward Vidulich.
In the statement, which Matthews posted Feb. 3 on his blog at thaddeusmatthews.com , Cox said he killed Vidulich in self-defense after his attempt to extort the officer went awry. Cox told Vidulich he wanted money for his help in returning sexually explicit photographs stolen from Vidulich's home in July, according to the statement.
Cox's account raised doubts about Police Director Larry Godwin's claim that the young man was simply a "brutal killer" who targeted Vidulich.
"I believe that there was a plan to frame this kid," Matthews said.
Two days after Matthews posted the document, Shelby County Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons launched an investigation to determine who inside the cop shop released the statement. Those responsible, Gibbons said, may have violated Tennessee's law prohibiting misuse of official information, a misdemeanor.
In the end, Matthews may be the only one able to provide information about the alleged crime. Asked if he would consider subpoenaing Matthews, Gibbons was cagey. "The matter is under investigation," he said.
Such a subpoena could lead to the first test of Tennessee's shield law -- which defines a journalist as "a person ... who is independently engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast" -- by nontraditional media.
"Though there is no case law in Tennessee on so-called 'nontraditional' journalists, it would just be very, very hard to argue that Matthews does not fit within the shield law's language," said Lucian Pera, an attorney who represents The Commercial Appeal.
But the Memphis blogger could be caught in a prickly part of the shield law. Under that law, a judge may choose to strip a reporter's shield if the journalist has information about a crime that "cannot reasonably be obtained by alternative means" when there is "a compelling and overriding public interest."
Previous rulings in Tennessee have established a high standard for divestiture of the shield. In 1987, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to remove the shield of Mark Curriden, a radio journalist protecting the identity of a man who confessed on-air to murder.
Although case law is on the blogger's side, a costly court battle to quash Gibbons' subpoena may challenge Matthews' financial wherewithal -- a situation that could test a citizen journalist's true ability to protect sources in Tennessee.
Even so, Matthews remains resolute. "If he wants to push, then push it," he said of Gibbons. "But I won't give up my source."
He added: "We'll take it all the way to the state Supreme Court if necessary."