Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shield Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee forwards resolution backing California shield law, opposes federal intervention in July 8 protest probe
Summary
The San Francisco Rules Committee voted to forward a resolution to the full Board urging protection of California's shield law and criticizing federal involvement in the investigation of the July 8 protest and the prosecution of freelance journalist Josh Wolf. The committee approved amendments recognizing a police officer's injury and urging Congress to consider a federal shield law; the motion passed 2-1.
The San Francisco Rules Committee on [date not specified] forwarded to the full Board a resolution opposing federal intervention in the city's investigation of the July 8 protest and expressing support for California's shield law.
Chair Ross Mercarimi, who introduced the resolution with Supervisor Tom Ammiano as a co-sponsor, said the text is intended to defend California Evidence Code section 1070 and "the respect and dignity of the First Amendment." Mercarimi told the hearing that the committee will try to invite the U.S. Attorney's Office to explain its involvement before the Board votes.
Speakers at a lengthy public-comment period urged supervisors to register a formal stance against what they described as federal overreach. An attorney with the National Lawyers Guild summarized the legal facts and the stakes, saying, "no police car burned," and arguing that the federal grand jury effort appeared to be an attempt to circumvent California's shield protections for unpublished materials. The attorney said local law enforcement and the district attorney already have investigative tools, including the grand jury locally, and urged the board to defend press independence.
Representatives from the National Lawyers Guild and the Bay Area chapter of the National Writers Union urged passage. Richard Nee of the Writers Union referenced federal rules of evidence and argued that grand juries should first exhaust law enforcement and other non-media sources for evidence before seeking journalists'materials.
Several residents and activists described the protest context, camera coverage and the potential chilling effect on freelance journalists if subpoenas for unpublished raw footage are enforced. One speaker from the Grand Jury Resistance Project said Josh Wolf could face up to a year in custody for refusing to turn over footage, calling the use of a federal grand jury in the case "inappropriate and a stretch."
Committee members discussed proposed changes to the resolution during the hearing. Supervisors agreed to add a whereas clause acknowledging that "during the July 2005 protest a police officer performing his duties suffered a fractured skull" to reflect local concerns and to add a resolved clause urging Congress to consider passage of a federal shield bill (identified in public comment as Senate bill 2831). Several supervisors said they would like the U.S. Attorney's Office to explain its rationale before the full Board acts.
On the motion to forward the item to the Board as amended, the committee recorded two ayes and one no. The clerk announced the committee report will go before the full Board, and staff said they will contact the U.S. Attorney's Office to invite comment before that vote.
Next steps: The committee's amended resolution will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda for a vote; the chair said the office will invite the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide a statement or representative if it wishes to do so.
