Authorities seize riot photos in an “intimidating” and inappropriate manner

Scott Wylie Hoover

Katie Malone, a Student Press Law Center staff writer reported on April 19 that the newsroom of James Madison University student newspaper in Virginia was entered by authorities with a search warrant. Photographs in-interest taken by “The Breeze” were seized on Friday April 16, by Rockingham Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst. Garst and 10 police officers conducted a search warrant on Friday morning and seized all published and unpublished photographs from a April 10 "Springfest" riot.
The Breeze’s editor-in-chief was notified about his request from the office of Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office on Thursday April 15. She told them that it is the newspaper’s policy that they can only release photos published on its website.
The authorities showed up on Friday morning threatening to seize all cameras, computers and documents unless the 900-some photos were handed over.
Currently, the photographs have been handed-over to a third party until further investigations.
Not only did the Attorney’s office have no right to conduct their search in this manner, they had no right to even take the photos. It was evident that they the Breeze was not prepared for this act of intrusion. With intimidating factors the staff did hand over the photographs.
Many campus newspapers have spoken out about this conflict. The Cavalier Daily of The University of Virginia said that “the practical justification for newspapers to protect materials and information like photos, anonymous sources and the like. It obviously would threaten a publication's integrity to release such information to law enforcement and certainly would discourage many sources from contributing. Whenever a newspaper photographer shows up to an event, students should not have to feel as though he may be collecting evidence for a future police report."
It is unsettling and frustrating to see authority figures act in a threatening responsive manner. This type of treatment is inappropriate; the attorney’s office should have handled this in a private manner with the newspaper, stating the seriousness of the situation with the Editor-in-chief and Managing editor, rather than making it a national dilemma. Negotiations can be handled privately, without confrontation, but when authority’s figures (10 police officers) “intimidate” the situation, then resolution seems sour and forever-pending.