I could see this case establishing in case law the right to journalist-informant privacy along the lines of attourney-client or even the older common law spousal immunity to testimony. The problem is the falsely rebuilding a case with admissable evidence revealed by suppressed poison-fruit evidence.
How does this fall as far as freedom of the press?
It is a hinkey situation, smells wrong, but I would love to see some good writing on the case to make an informed opinion.
Cops are allowed to lie. They always have been.
Why couldn’t they say they were with the Daily Mail, USA Today or some similar rag?
I thought even that wasn’t immune – so said someone at a law office.
Good for the FBI in this case. What is so magically wonderful about the AP or journalism in general that they should not be used for the purpose of catching someone who may bomb a school?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
