DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar No. 141930) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com DAN LAIDMAN (CA State Bar No. 274482) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: danlaidman@dwt.com Attorneys for Non-Party Journalist BRYAN CARMODY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE SEARCH WARRANTS DIRECTED TO NON-PARTY OURNALIST Misc. Case Assigned to the Hon. Samuel Feng EX PART APPLICATION OF NON- PARTY OURNALIST BRYAN CARMODY FOR ORDER QUASHING SEARCH WARRANTS AND FOR RETURN OF IMPROPERLY SEIZED NEWSGATHERING MATERIALS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHORTEN SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DECLARATIONS OF BRYAN CARMODY AND THOMAS R. BURKE WITH EXHIBITS A AND [Proposed Order concurrently submitted] Date: May 21, 2019 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: 22 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP #0310 APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE RELIEF Non-party journalist Bryan Carmody respectfully requests that this Court quash and revoke the search warrants that it issued on May 9, 2019 for his home at _No. SW43687 on May 10, 2019 for his of?ce at ?No. SW43684. and order the San Francisco Police Department to return all of the seized property to him immediately, or, in the alternative, that this Court shorten time so that this request can be heard as soon as possible. Mr. Carmody is a journalist engaged in gathering and disseminating news to the public, and the SFPD seized dozens of computers, phones, cameras, tablets, hard drives, and reporters notebooks which contained sensitive unpublished editorial information and which he has used and continues to use in his newsgathering. Carmody Dec]. 1111 1-16; Memorandum, Section II. The search and seizure of Mr. Carmody?s constitutionally protected editorial materials was improper under Article I, 2(b) of the California Constitution and California Evidence Code 1070 (the ?Shield Law?), California Penal Code 1524(g), the federal Privacy Protection Act (42 U.S.C. 2000aa?2000aa?12), the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the free speech and press clause of the California Constitution. See Memorandum. Section Because the search warrants are invalid and the ongoing seizure of these materials violates Mr. Carmody?s constitutional rights, he requests that this Court exercise its inherent power and authority under California Penal Code 1538-1540 to quash the warrants and direct the SF PD to return all of the materials immediately. Id, Section Ex parte relief is warranted because Mr. Carmody is suffering serious constitutional injury and the public is being denied important information with each passing day that the SFPD retains custody of his newsgathering materials. See Carmody Decl. 11 16. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, ?[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.? Elrod v. Bums, 427 US. 347, 373 (1976). Mr. Carmody seeks relief under both the Court?s inherent power and the statutory scheme embodied in ?Penal Code sections 1538.5, 1539, 1540, the purpose of which is to provide one Whose property is seized with a speedy remedy in a readily accessible court.? People v. De Renzy, 275 Cal. App. 2d 380, 387 (1969) (quotation omitted; emphasis added). Through these provisions, 1 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP OOQOXUILUJN ?California law affords a prompt and speedy remedy, including an adversary hearing, for the return of property improperly taken under a search warrant.? Id. (emphasis added). The search was conducted on May 10, 2019, and Mr. Carmody?s counsel contacted the SFPD that day to attempt to resolve the matter without the need for the Court?s See Burke Decl. ll 2. Mr. Carmody?s counsel followed up with the SFPD several times over the weekend of May 11-12 and sent a formal letter on May 13, 2019, informing the Department that Mr. Carmody would move this Court for relief it did not respond to his requests. Id. 3?4. Because the SF PD did not respond to this correspondence, Mr. Carmody?s counsel provided ex parte notice in email correspondence on May 14, 2019, and in follow?up emails and telephone calls on May 16, 2019, to the legal counsel, Alicia Cabrera and Sean Connolly, informing them of the relief sought in this Application. See Burke Decl. 6. Ms. Cabrera?s contact information is as follows: Of?ce of the City Attorney, 1 Carlton Goodlett Pl, Ste 234, San Francisco, CA 94102, Phone Number: (415) 554-4673; Fax Number: (415) 554-4699; Email: alicia.cabrera@sfgov.org. As of the ?nalizing of this declaration counsel have not indicated if SF PD opposes the requested relief See Burke Decl. 1] 6. Pursuant to Local Rule Mr. Carmody seeks the return of all of the items which were seized from him pursuant to the search warrants, which are listed in the Property Receipt Form attached to his Declaration as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Local Rule the legal basis and authorities upon which Mr. Carmody relies for this Motion are set forth in Section of the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 2 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP This Motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Bryan Carmody and Thomas R. Burke with Exhibits A and B, the complete ?les and records in this matter, and such argument as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. DATED: May 16, 2019 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE DAN LAWAN By: . i'r . 1 Thomas R. Burke Attorneys for Non-Party Journalist Bryan Carmody 3 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 8 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 111. MR. NEWSGATHERING MATERIALS WERE IMPROPERLY SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND MUST BE RETURNED 12 A. The Court Has The Authority To Quash The Improperly Obtained Search Warrants And Order The Return Of The Seized Material. 12 B. The Search Warrants Are Invalid Because The Seized Material Is Protected By The Shield Law And Reporter?s Privilege. 13 C. The Search Warrants Also Violate Federal Law. 19 D. The Search Violated Constitutional Due Process And Free Speech Principles 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 4 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases v. Asselin, 734 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) 22 Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, 239 Cal. App. 4th 808 (2015) 20 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 US. 514 (2001) 20 Berkeley Police Ass ?n v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal. App. 3d 931 (1977) 20 Citicasters v. McCoskill, 89 F.3d 1350 (8th Cir. 1996) 19 Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 3d 785 (1990) 16 ost v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 4th 724 (2000) 17 Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 883 (1999) 8, 14, 17 Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 268 (1984) 17 Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 8,19 New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 453 (1990) 16,17 Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, 177 Cal. App. 3d 509 (1986) 20 ?Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (2006) 15, 17 People v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 3d 600 (1972) 12 Pe0ple v. Vasco, 131 Cal. App. 4th 137 (2005) 17 5 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP People v. Von Villas, 10 Cal. App. 4th 201 (1992) 14, 15 Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Superior Court, 154 Cal. App. 3d 14 (1984) 14, 15, 16 Rouzan v. Doria, 2014 US. Dist. LEXIS 61012 (CD. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) 21 Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1995) 18 Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993) 18 Smith v. Fair Employment Hous. Comm 12Ca1.4th1143 (1996) 19 Williams v. Justice Court for 0roville Judicial Dist, 230 Cal. App. 2d 87 (1964) 12 In re Willon, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1080 (1996) 13 Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US. 547 (1978) 21, 22 Statutes 42 U.S.C. 2000aa-2000aa?12 9 2000aa(a)(1) 19 2000aa(a)(2) 19 19 2000aa(b)(1) 19 2000aa(b)(2) 21 19 20003a(b)(3) 21 2000aa(b)(4)(A) 21 2000aa(b)(4)(B) 21 2000aa(c) 21 California Penal Code 1524(g) passim 13 13 153 13 13 1538.5(n) 9, 12, 13 1540 12,13,18 6 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP California Evidence Code 1070 9, 13 1070(a) 17 California Government Code 6254(1) 20 Other Authorities 28 C.F.R. 18 59.1(a) 21 59.1(b) 21 Cali?wmia Constitution article I, 2(a) 17 article I, 2(b) passim US. Constitution amendment I passim amendment IV 21 amendment XIV 21 7 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERIN MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The free ?ow of information to the public is jeopardized when the government uses its vast coercive power to commandeer a journalist?s independent newsgathering efforts to further its own investigative aims. As the California Supreme Court has recognized, the ?threat to the autonomy of the press is posed as much by a criminal prosecutor as by other litigants.? Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 883, 898 (1999). To guard against such abuse and allow the press to carry out its ?unique role in society? of keeping the public informed state and federal law make it virtually impossible for government of?cials to obtain and execute search warrants targeting journalists? newsgathering material. See Cal. Penal Code 1524(g); 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq. Instead, the Legislature and Congress both have adopted ?subpoena??rst? regimes which ensure that journalists have the opportunity to assert their rights against compelled disclosure in a noticed, contested court proceeding before a search takes place. Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. . 821 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Cal. Penal Code 1524(g); 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq. Despite this unambiguous controlling law, the San Francisco Police Department dispensed with the subpoena requirement entirely in this case and executed a pair of violent and breathtakingly overbroad searches of journalist Bryan Carmody?s home and of?ce after obtaining plainly invalid warrants. In a needless display of force, nearly a dozen armed of?cers used a Sledgehammer to break into Mr. Carmody?s residence and then kept him handcuffed for hours as they rummaged through his personal and professional belongings and seized 68 different items, including numerous computers, phones, cameras, tablets, hard drives, and reporters notebooks which Mr. Carmody uses for his work as a journalist. See Carmody Decl. 1111 13-16, EX. B. Mr. Carmody?s counsel reached out to the SFPD immediately following the May 10, 2019 searches to demand that these editorial materials be returned and that of?cials refrain from reviewing them until his legal challenges are resolved. See Burke Decl. 2-3. But the SFPD has not responded, forcing Mr. Carmody to seek relief from this Court. Id. 11 4. Because the search warrants are contrary to state and federal law, and the SF continued possession of Mr. Carmody?s sensitive newsgathering materials violates his constitutional rights, this Court should 8 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP exercise its inherent power and authority under the Penal Code to quash and revoke the subpoenas and order the seized materials returned immediately. See Section Penal Code 1538-40. There are multiple legal grounds for granting Mr. Carmody this relief. First. the search warrants were issued in direct violation of California Penal Code 1524(g), which unambiguously provides that warrant shall issue? for items covered by the California Shield Law. See Section The Shield Law protects against the compelled disclosure of journalists? unpublished editorial information and resource materials. See Cal. Const, art. I, Evid. Code 1070. The law has been clear for decades that the Shield Law applies to freelance reporters like Mr. Carmody, and it broadly applies to any and all unpublished information obtained in the course of gathering and disseminating information to the public. See Section Mr. Cannody gathered the information at issue in his role as a journalist, and as a non-party embroiled in a criminal investigation his protection under the Shield Law is absolute and not subject to any balancing of countervailing interests. Id Second, Mr. Carmody?s newsgathering materials independently are protected by the reporter?s privilege arising from the First Amendment and the California Constitution?s free speech and press clause. Memorandum, Section Cal. Penal Code 1538.5(n) (recognizing right of journalists to challenge searches ?on the ground that the property obtained is protected by the free speech and press provisions of the United States and California Constitutions?). Third, the search warrants are deficient for the separate and additional reason that they plainly violate the federal Privacy Protection Act which bars all public officials state and federal from searching and seizing documentary materials from journalists except in the most extreme circumstances. See 42 U.S.C. 2000aa?2000aa?12. None of the limited exceptions applies here, as there was no exigency for the searches and Mr. Carmody was not, and could not be, a target of any criminal investigation himself. See Section Finally, in addition to the constitutional and statutory protections which render the search warrants invalid, basic principles of due process require government of?cials to carry out any search and seizure of sensitive personal information particularly from non?parties with special care. See Section The SFPD disregard these requirements and carried out an egregiously 9 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERTNG MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP overbroad and intrusive search, violently breaking into Mr. Carmody?s home, threatening him with drawn guns, and seizing dozens of communications devices after rummaging through his residence and home for hours while he sat in handcuffs despite posing no conceivable threat. Id During the course of the search of his home, Mr. Carmody was also questioned by FBI agents who pressed to reveal his con?dential source. For all of the reasons set forth above, Mr. Carmody respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion, quash and revoke the search warrants in their entirety, and order the SF PD of?cials with custody over the seized property to return all of it to him immediately. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Bryan Carmody is a veteran journalist with 30 years of news experience. See Carmody Decl. 1111 2-5. He has worked full?time as a journalist since the early 19905. Id. 11 5. As the founder and owner of North Bay News, Mr. Carmody and his associates report breaking news stories and distribute their reporting and video footage on a freelance basis to local, national, and international print, broadcast, and online media outlets. Id. 11 5. He focuses on law enforcement and public safety issues, and his work regularly appears on Bay Area television news broadcasts and print publications. Id. 1111 5-7. Mr. Carmody has held an of?cial press pass issued by the San Francisco Police Department for more than 16 years. Id 11 3, Ex. A (copy of Mr. Carmody?s current 2019 SFPD press pass). In his capacity as a journalist, Mr. Carmody reported on the death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi in February 2019. Id. 1111 8-11. In the course of his reporting, Mr. Carmody passively received a copy of a police report about Mr. Adachi?s death from a con?dential source. Id. 11 10. Mr. Carmody did not ask the source to provide him with the document, nor did he pay the source or provide any compensation for the document. Id Consistent with standard journalistic practices, Mr. Carmody agreed not to reveal the source?s identity, and he has not done so. Id. Mr. Carmody prepared a news report about Mr. Adachi?s death based on interviews that he conducted, video footage that he shot, and documentary materials including the police report, and placed it with three Bay Area television stations for broadcast to the public. Id. 11 11. Mr. Carmody exercised his editorial discretion in assembling the news package although the television 1 0 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP stations ultimately determined the ?nal content and presentation of the reports that they aired, as is the standard practice in the news business. Id Any and all information and materials that Mr. Carmody received related to the death of Mr. Adachi, including the police report, were obtained in the course of his gathering, processing, and disseminating information to the public through these news reports. Id. ii 10. On April 11, 2019, two San Francisco Police Department of?cers came to Mr. Carmody?s home and asked him to identify the source who allegedly gave him the police report concerning Mr. Adachi?s death. Id. 1] 12. Mr. Carmody refused to provide information about his sources, prompting the of?cers to threaten him with a federal grand jury subpoena. Id. Mr. Carmody steadfastly refused to disclose source information, and the of?cers left. Id. Mr. Carmody did not have any ?irther contacts with law enforcement for nearly a month until May 10, 2019, when San Francisco Police returned to his home to execute a search warrant. Id. 11 13. Of?cers used a Sledgehammer to enter Mr. Carmody?s home, and once inside armed of?cers handcuffed and detained him for several hours while nearly a dozen armed of?cers searched his home. Id. While police searched Mr. Carmody?s home, two individuals who identi?ed themselves as FBI agents took him into a separate room and, with no SFPD of?cers present, repeatedly asked him to reveal his source. Id 11 14. Mr. Carmody refused to do so. Id. During the search, of?cers learned of Mr. Carmody?s of?ce on Fulton Street and obtained a second search warrant; they drove Mr. Carmody to his of?ce where they carried out a second search while Mr. Carmody remained in handcuffs. Id. 1] 15. As a result of both searches, San Francisco Police con?scated 68 items, including multiple laptops, computers, cellphones, tables, hard drives, thumb drives, cameras. and reporters notebooks. Id. 11 16, Ex. B. Mr. Carmody uses and has used the seized items for his work as a journalist on hundreds of news investigations over the past three decades. Id. The seizure of virtually all of his newsgathering materials has interfered with Mr. Carmody?s ability to make a living as a full-time journalist and report on issues of signi?cant public interest Id. On the evening of the searches on Friday, May 10, Mr. Carmody?s counsel, Thomas R. Burke, telephoned the San Francisco Police Department and conveyed his concerns about the 11 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP search to an of?cer and requested that the SFPD not review any of the seized materials. See Burke Decl. 2. Mr. Burke placed follow?up calls to SF PD of?cials later that evening and again on Saturday, May 11, and was informed that SFPD of?cials were aware of his concerns and would respond soon. 1d. 11 3. Having received no response by Monday, May 13. 2019, Mr. Burke sent a letter to SFPD Chief William Seott1 requesting that the SF PD respond and advising that otherwise Mr. Carrnody would seek relief from the Court. Id. 1i 4. That same day, SFPD Lieutenant Pilar E. Torres sent an email to Mr. Carmody apologizing for his ?inconvenience? and stating that the Department might return some items ?deemed as having no evidentiary value? at an undisclosed date, but indicating that the SFPD would not return any newsgathering items that it considers ?relevant to our criminal investigation.? See Carmody Decl. 11 18. The email did not address Mr. Carmedy?s request that the SFPD not review his property until his legal challenge is resolved, but con?rmed that of?cials are in fact actively reviewing his newsgathering materials. Id. The SFPD did not respond to Mr. Burke?s letter, and therefore counsel gave ex parte notice to the counsel on May 16, 2019 . See Burke Decl. 1i 6. MR. NEWSGATHERING MATERIALS WERE IMPROPERLY SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND MUST BE RETURNED A. The Court Has The Authority To Quash The Improperly Obtained Search Warrants And Order The Return Of The Seized Material. ?Due process of law entitles the claimant of seized property to an early court hearing to determine whether the articles were subject to seizure.? Williams v. Justice Court for Oroville Judicial Dist, 230 Cal. App. 2d 87, 98 (1964). ?The purpose of Penal Code sections 1539 and 1540 is to provide the owner of seized property with a readily accessible court to pass on lawfulness of the seizure.? Id. In addition to these provisions, the Penal Code speci?cally contemplates that a journalist can bring ?a motion, otherwise permitted by law, to return [seized] property, . .. on the ground that the property obtained is protected by the free speech and press provisions of the United States and California Constitutions.? Cal. Penal Code 1 A copy of this letter was also hand-delivered to the Hon.Garrett L. Wong and the Hon. Samuel Feng. 12 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP AWN Moreover, the Court independently can quash a warrant and order seized property returned ?in the exercise of its inherent power to prevent the abuse of court processes.? People v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 3d 600, 608 (1972) (entertaining nonstatutory motion for return of seized property, notng that ?an of?cer seizing and holding property under a search warrant does so on behalf of the court; possession by the of?cer is in contemplation of the law possession by the court?). Grounds for deeming a search warrant invalid and ordering property returned include, inter alia, that the property is protected by the First Amendment and California Constitution (Cal. Penal Code that the search and seizure was unreasonable (Id that the warrant lacked probable cause (Id. 1540); that the manner in which the warrant was executed violated constitutional standards (Id. or that ?[t]here was any other violation of federal or state constitutional standards? (Id All of these defects apply in the current case because the SFPD sought and obtained grossly overbroad search warrants and seized unpublished newsgathering materials from Mr. Carmody that are squarely protected by the California Constitution, the First Amendment, and state and federal laws expressly prohibiting the issuance of search warrants for journalists? editorial work product. Consequently, the search warrants should be quashed and revoked entirely and the property seized from Mr. Carmody must be returned immediately. See Cal. Penal Code 1540. B. The Search Warrants Are Invalid Because The Seized Material Is Protected By The Shield Law And Reporter?s Privilege. California Penal Code 1524(g) unequivocally provides that ]0 [search] warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section I 070 of the Evidence Code.? (Emphasis added.) Evidence Code 1070 contains California?s statutory journalist?s Shield Law, which is virtually identical to the Constitutional provision. See Evid. Code 1070; Cal. Const, art. I, The Shield Law provides that a journalist ?shall not be adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.? Cal. Const, art. I Evid. Code 1070. The purpose of the Shield Law is ?to safeguard the free ?ow of information from the news media to the public, one of the most fundamental cornerstones assuring freedom in America.? In 1 3 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Willon, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1091 (1996) (quotation omitted). The California Supreme Court has recognized that the Shield Law is necessary in light of ?the press? unique role in society,? explaining that, the institution that gathers and disseminates information, journalists often serve as the eyes and ears of the public. Because journalists not only gather a great deal of information, but publicly identify themselves as possessing it, they are especially prone to be called upon by litigants seeking to minimize the costs of obtaining needed information.? Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 883, 898 (1999) (quotations omitted). Not only is this burdensome, but using the power of the state to compel journalists to become investigative arms of one side of a legal dispute undermines their editorial independence and erodes the trust of their sources, which frustrates their ability to gather information to the ultimate detriment of the public. In recognizing this dynamic, the Supreme Court speci?cally noted that the ?threat to the autonomy of the press is posed as much by a criminal prosecutor as by other litigants.? 1d. (original emphasis). By elevating the Shield Law from the Evidence Code to the state constitution in 1980, the California electorate made clear that those who gather and disseminate information to the public must be given the strongest possible protection against the compelled disclosure of unpublished editorial information. As one Court of Appeal noted: The elevation to constitutional status must be viewed as an intention to favor the interest of the press in con?dentiality over [competing interests]. It has long been acknowledged that our state Constitution is the highest expression of the will of the people acting in their sovereign capacity as to matters of state law. When the Constitution speaks plainly on a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the state. Playboy Enters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 154 Cal. App. 3d 14, 27?28 (1984). The materials that the SF PD forcibly seized from Mr. Carmody ?t squarely within the scope of the Shield Law, which renders the search warrants invalid under Penal Code 1524(g). First, it has been settled law for nearly 30 years that the Shield Law applies to freelance journalists like Mr. Carmody. In People v. Von Villas, 10 Cal. App. 4th 201 (1992), the Shield Law defeated a subpoena seeking a freelance writer?s notes and interview tapes in connection with articles that he wrote for Hustler and Los Angeles Magazine. Id. at 228. The court held that the ?constitutional provision plainly encompasses [his] position as a freelance writer,? and it rejected 14 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP argument that the Shield Law should apply only to information that he gathered after entering into a contract to sell his article to one of the magazines. Id. at 231-32. The court explained that the journalist ?had been a reporter or freelance writer for some 13 years prior to his involvement with the instant articles. The clear language of article 1, section 2, subdivision provided him with newsperson?s shield protection both before and after the execution of the written Hustler contract.? Id at 232 (emphasis added). See also Playboy, 154 Cal. App. 3d at 18-19 (Shield Law barred compelled disclosure of freelance journalist?s notes and interview recordings). More recently, the Sixth Appellate District broadly interpreted the Shield Law to include an online blogger who wrote about Apple products, holding that the Shield Law barred the company?s attempt to force him to reveal his sources. See 0 ?Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (2006). In resounding terms, the court rejected any attempt to limit the scope of the Shield Law based on the type of ournalism involved, explaining: we decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of What constitutes ?legitimate The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish ?legitimate? from ?illegitimate? news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace. Id. at 1457 (original emphasis). It is plain from these authorities that the Shield Law protects Mr. Carmody?s editorial materials. As discussed above, he is a journalist with 30 years of experience covering breaking news and law enforcement and public safety issues for a variety of different print and broadcast news outlets. See Section Carmody Decl. 1?8. Mr. Carmody holds an of?cial SFPD press pass. Id. 113, Ex. A. To the extent that the SFPD raided Mr. Carmody?s home seeking evidence related to the disclosure of the police report about Mr. Adachi?s death, Mr. Carmody covered this story and obtained any materials solely in his capacity as a journalist, and provided a related news package to three Bay Area television stations for broadcast to the public. Id. 111] 8-11. He plainly 15 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAIN LLP ooxaoxUIme journalist protected by the Shield Law. See Von Villas, 10 Cal. App. 4th at 232.2 Second, the Shield Law broadly applies to any and all unpublished editorial materials. As the Supreme Court explained in Delaney v. Superior Court. 50 Cal. 3d 785 (1990): The language of article I, section 2(b) is clear and unambiguous . . . . The section states plainly that a newsperson shall not be adjudged in contempt for ?refusing to disclose any unpublished information.? The use of the word ?any? makes clear that article I, section 2(b) applies to all information, regardless of whether it was obtained in con?dence. Words used in a constitutional provision ?should be given the meaning they bear in ordinary use.? In the context of article I. section the word ?any? means without limit and no matter what kind. Id. at 798 (emphasis added; internal citations omitted); accord New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 453, 461-62 (1990) (unpublished photographs of public event protected}. The Shield Law thus immunizes from compelled disclosure any information received, or materials generated or compiled, during the newsgathering process that have not actually been published or broadcast. Id For example, in Playboy, the court rejected a claim that a freelancer?s unpublished notes should be produced because related information was published. 154 Cal. App. 3d at 21. The court cited language in Article I, Section 2(b) which expressly de?nes "un published information? to include any information ?not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated.? Id. at 23 ~24 (emphasis added). All of the items seized from Mr. Carmody are within the purposefully broad scope of the Shield Law. Not only did the SF PD search for items in connection with its investigation regarding the police report about Mr. Adachi?s death, but it conducted a far broader raid, rummaging through and con?scating Mr. Carmody?s entire news operation. See Carmody Decl. 11 16. The SF PD seized dozens of computers, cell phones, tablets, cameras, hard drives, and other devices which 2 Organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and many others have issued statements in the wake of the SFPD raids strongly af?rming Mr. Carmody?s status as a journalist protected by the Shield Law. See Burke Decl. 11 5. Mr. Carmody?s reporting on Mr. Adachi?s death involved extensive original journalistic work including conducting interviews, reviewing various documents, shooting video footage, and obtaining public records. See Carmody Declclear that the Shield Law applies even to the dissemination of a ?verbatim? document. 0 ?Grady, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 1457 (rejecting Apple?s claim that Shield Law should not apply to blogger who posted its documents online, reasoning that ?an absence of editorial judgment cannot be inferred merely from the fact that some source material is published verbatim? and ?[t]he shield exists not only to protect editors but equally if not more to protect newsgatherers?). l6 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP hulkMr. Carmody uses for his newsgathering and which contain unpublished editorial information related to Mr. Carmody?s journalistic projects. Id. The seized material falls well within the scope of the Shield Law, and therefore was subject to the restrictions of Penal Code Third, Mr. Carmody enjoys absolute protection under the Shield Law. The California Supreme Court has made clear that the only interest to be balanced against a journalist?s Shield Law rights is the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial; in all other instances the Shield Law is absolute. See Miller, 21 Cal. 4th at 896?97 (Shield Law is absolute for a non?party reporter subpoenaed by the People in a criminal case and is not balanced against any competing interest of the prosecution); People v. Vasco, 131 Cal. App. 4th 137, 158 (2005) prosecution has no due process right to overcome a newsperson?s shield law immunity and force disclosure of unpublished information, even if the undisclosed information is crucial to the prosecution?s case?); New York Times, 51 Cal. 3d at 461 (Shield Law absolute for non-party reporters in civil litigation). Because the government is seeking in formation from Mr. Carmody to further a criminal investigation and potential prosecution, this is a context in which there is no countervailing interest capable of overcoming his rights, and the Shield Law is absolute. See Miller, 21 Cal. 4th at 896-97; Fort v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 4th 724, 731 (2000) (Shield Law immunity ?need never yield to any superior constitutional right of the People?) (emphasis added).4 Finally, in addition to the absolute protection offered by the California Shield Law, Mr. Carmody also is entitled to protection under the privilege created by the First Amendment to the US. Constitution and Article 1, Section 2(a) of the state constitution, which California courts recognize as an independent ground for rejecting compelled disclosure of unpublished editorial 3 The SF May 13 email to Mr. Carmody implicitly conceded that the Department conducted a grossly overbroad search and seizure of his entire newsgathering operation that went far beyond the investigation related to Mr. Adachi. See Carmody Decl. 11 18. 4 Because only a criminal defendant has a countervailing interest that can be balanced against the Shield Law, Mr. Carmody?s protection against compelled disclosure is absolute regardless of whether police or prosecutors are seeking the information. See Miller, 21 Cal. 4th at 896-97. But in any event, in the City and County of San Francisco, the police, the prosecution, and the Board of Supervisors (which apparently called for the current investigation) are all part of the same governmental entity. Moreover, the Shield Law broadly applies to any ?judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas.? Cal. Const. Art. I Evid. Code 1070(a). This applies to court proceedings and criminal investigations including grand jury probes. See Miller, 21 Cal. 4th at 899 (explaining that California purposefully adopted a broad state Shield Law that would apply to criminal grand jury proceedings in response to a contrary US). Supreme Court ruling under federal law). 1 7 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP iIs.) information. See Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 268, 277-279 (1984); ?Grady, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 1466-68. This protection broadly applies to all individuals who ?gather, select, and prepare, for purposes of publication to a mass audience. information about current events of interest and concern to that audience.? 0 ?Grady, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 1467. Like the Shield Law, the reporter?s privilege protects against the compelled disclosure of both con?dential and non?con?dential information. See Sheen v. Sheen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1993} (?Sheen It recognizes that compelled production of even non-con?dential information ?can constitute a signi?cant intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial processes. [I]t may substantially undercut the public policy favoring the free ?ow of information that is the foundation for the privilege.? 1d. (quotation omitted). The reporter?s privilege ensures that ?compelled disclosure from a journalist must be a last resort after pursuit of other opportunities has failed.? 5 F.3d at 1297-98 (emphasis added). To ensure that the privilege prevails ?in all but the most exceptional cases,? a subpoenaing party must show that the requested material is unavailable despite exhaustion of all reasonable alternative sources; (2) noncumulative; and (3) clearly relevant to an important issue in the case.? Sheen v. Sheen, 48 .3d 412, 416 (9th Cir. 1995) (?Sheen The government has not, and could not, make such a showing in this case, in which it has engaged in a breathtakingly overbroad ?shing expedition by seizing dozens of electronic devices containing massive volumes of data related to all of Mr. Carmody?s newsgathering activities, with no particularized showing of need for any particular piece of information, and no showing of exhaustion of alternative sources.5 For all of these reasons, Mr. Carmody?s editorial materials clearly are protected both by the 5 Notably, the United States Department of Justice?s Guidelines on gathering information from members of the news media includes a similar standard, explaining that the ?Department views the use of certain law enforcement tools, including subpoenas [and] search warrants to seek information from, or records of, non-consenting members of the news media as extraordinary measures, not standard investigatery practices.? 28 C.F.R. (emphasis added). The Guidelines direct of?cials to use such tools only with authorization from the highest-ranking DOJ of?cials and when the information is ?essential? and ?after all reasonable alternative attempts have been made to obtain the information from alternative sources; and after negotiations with the affected member of the news media have been pursued and appropriate notice to the affected member of the news media has been provided.? Id. It is noteworthy that none of these procedures were followed or safeguards applied in the current case, even though the SFPD apparently brought FBI agents (who are subject to the DOJ Guidelines) in to help conduct the raid and attempt to interrogate Mr. Carmody about his con?dential source. See Carmody Dec]. 11 14. 1 8 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Shield Law and the reporter?s privilege arising from the ?free speech and press provisions of the United States and California Constitutions," and therefore the warrants were invalid and the seized property must be returned. See Penal Code 1524(g), 1540. C. The Search Warrants Also Violate Federal Law. The seizure of Mr. Carmody?s editorial materials also violated the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq. (the Like California?s Penal Code 1524(g), the PPA creates a ?subpoena-?rst rule? for government searches directed at journalists which "generally prohibits government of?cials from searching for and seizing documentary materials possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate information to the public.? Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1120-21 (ND. Cal. 2011) (quotation omitted). The statute broadly applies both to editorial ?work product? and any other ?documentary materials,? and it applies whenever the target of a search is ?reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public? information in a ?newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication.? 42 U.S.C. The law, which applies to state and local officials, ?presents a straightforward statutory scheme for protecting those engaged in information dissemination from government intrusion by prohibiting searches and seizures of documentary materials except where government of?cials have a reasonable belief that a statutory exception applies.? Citicasters v. McCaskill, 89 F.3d 1350, 1355 (8th Cir. 1996) (local prosecutor could be held liable under PPA based on seizure of videotape from television station); Morse, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1121 (journalist whose camera was seized could bring PPA claim against chief of UC Berkeley police department); see also Smith v. Fair Employment Hous. Comm 12 Cal. 4th 1143, 1236 n.11 (1996) (recognizing the effect of ?restricting the ability of government investigators to obtain documents from the media?). The narrow exceptions to the PPA do not apply in this case. There plainly were no exigent circumstances in which immediate seizure was necessary to protect someone?s physical safety or prevent the destruction of evidence. 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a)(2), To the contrary, the SFPD ?rst visited Mr. Cannody and tried to interrogate him more than a month before the search, and when he refused to disclose any source information they left and took no further action for 9 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMATNE LLP weeks. See Carmody Decl. 11 12; Section II. There is no basis to believe that anyone?s safety is at risk or that evidence will be destroyed, rendering the primary exception to the PPA inapplicable. Nor is there any probable cause to believe that Mr. Cannody "has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate.? 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a)(1), The SFPD did not arrest Mr. Carmody, and at no point has any of?cial told him that he is being investigated on suspicion of committing any crime. See Carmody Dec]. 11 17. Authorities are not targeting Mr. Carmody because they cannot do so consistent with the First Amendment and the California Constitution. It is black letter constitutional law that a reporter cannot be held liable, criminally or civilly, for receiving, possessing, or publishing truthful information on matters of public concern merely because government of?cials were supposed to keep the information secret. ?While the government may desire to keep some proceedings con?dential and may impose the duty upon participants to maintain con?dentiality, it may not impose criminal or civil liability upon the press for obtaining and publishing newsworthy information through routine reporting techniques.? Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, 177 Cal. App. 3d 509, 519-520 (1986). ?Such techniques, of course, include asking persons questions, including those with con?dential or restricted information.? Id. at 519 (emphasis added). The court thus held that the First Amendment prevented journalists from being punished for obtaining and publishing information from a con?dential report about a judicial nominee. 1d. at 513.6 As the US. Supreme Court explained when it held that a journalist could not be held liable for receiving, possessing, and broadcasting a phone call that was illegally intercepted and recorded by a third?party and leaked to the media, ?a stranger?s illegal conduct does not suf?ce to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.? Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 US. 514, 535 (2001). Applying these authorities under analogous circumstances, the Court of Appeal soundly rejected the proposition that a reporter engaged in ?illegal conduct? by receiving and possessing ?confidential? background investigation ?les about sheriff?s deputies that allegedly 6 Here, the report at issue is not required to be kept con?dential by law, and the police have the discretion to release it to the public. The California Public Records Act expressly provides that the exemption for police investigative records is permissive and not mandatory. See Gov?t Code 6254(1); Berkeley Police Ass ?n v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal. App. 3d 931, 942 (1977) (exemption does not prevent agencies from disclosing police records). 20 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP had been leaked by a third-party in violation of the law. See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. L03 Angeles Times Communications LLC, 239 Cal. App. 4th 808, 820 (2015). The court noted the ?wealth of both State and Federal case law, discussing the protection journalists and the press enjoy under the First Amendment where there have been allegations that published or disclosed content had been illegally obtained.? Id at 819 (quotation omitted). As these authorities make clear, Mr. Carmody?s news reporting is fully protected by the First Amendment and California Constitution, and none of the narrow exceptions to the PPA apply here.7 Thus, the government?s conduct clearly violated federal law. D. The Search Violated Constitutional Due Process And Free Speech Principles Finally, the government?s search and seizure, and its refusal to immediately return the materials seized from Mr. Carmody, are unreasonable and in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the Fourth Amendment?s requirements were not applied with ?scrupulous exactitude.? Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US. 547, 564 (1978) (where ?the materials sought to be seized [from the media] may be protected by the ?rst amendment, the requirements of the fourth amendment must be applied with ?scrupulous exactitude??). See also Rouzan v. Doria, 2014 US Dist. LEXIS 61012, at *26 (CD. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) (?the seizure and search of Plaintiff cellphone are assessed under the heightened protection afforded First Amendment materials?) (citing Zurcher, 436 US. at 564). Even in non-media situations. wide-ranging searches of non-parties? homes, of?ces, papers, and electronic devices like the one experienced by Mr. Carmody are strongly disfavored and subject to rigorous safeguards. For example, federal regulations recognize that a ?search for documentary materials necessarily involves intrusions into personal privacy,? especially when ?the privacy of a person?s home or of?ce may be breached? and ?private papers? examined. 28 7 The other exceptions apply when materials ?have not been produced in response to a court order directing compliance with a subpoena? and ?all appellate remedies have been exhausted,? 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(b)(2), (3), and and when a court has ordered the media to respond to a subpoena for the materials and ?there is reason to believe that the delay in an investigation or trial occasioned by further proceedings relating to the subpoena would threaten the interests of justice.? Id. 2000aa(b)(3) and Concerning this ?interests of justice? exception, the Act provides that the media ?shall be afforded adequate opportunity to submit an af?davit setting forth the basis for any contention that the materials sought are not subject to seizure.? Id. 2000aa(c). These exceptions are inapplicable, as there have been no such prior proceedings, and Mr. Carmody was afforded none of the requisite procedural protections. 2 1 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP h?I i?A r?5 I?d tn?t t?C.F.R. Therefore, the regulations direct public of?cials ?to recognize the importance of these personal privacy interests, and to protect against unnecessary intrusions.? Id. at This means that, ?[g]enerally, when documentary materials are held by a disinterested third party, a subpoena, administrative summons, or governmental request will be an effective alternative to the use of a search warrant and will be considerably less intrusive." Id. (emphasis added). The SFPD disregarded these safeguards and obtained two warrants which apparently were virtually boundless in scope given that investigators rummaged through Mr. Carmody?s home and of?ce for hours and seized 68 different items including numerous computers, hard drives, cell phones, tablets, and reporters notebooks. See Carmody Decl. 1] 16, Ex. B. Although most of the warrant materials remain sealed and inaccessible to Mr. Carmody, it is inconceivable under the circumstances that the warrant was supported with suf?cient detail to achieve the ?scrupulous exactitude? required to support a search that infringed so seriously upon core First Amendment rights. See v. Asselin, 734 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2013) (search warrant af?davit would be ?insuf?cient under Zurcher? if it did not include enough detail for judges ?to ?focus searchingly? on the question of whether? the seized items were constitutionally protected). This is particularly true given how the search was conducted: despite the fact that they were dealing with a journalist who posed no actual or potential safety threat, nearly a dozen armed SF PD of?cers handcuffed Mr. Carmody for hours and used a Sledgehammer to enter his home. Id. 13-15. The needlessly violent, intrusive, and extremely overbroad search and seizure violated basic due process principles, rendering the search warrants invalid on this additional independent basis. IV. CONCLUSION At all relevant times here Mr. Carmody acted as a journalist using ?routine reporting techniques,? entitling him to the full protection of the First Amendment and state and federal laws prohibiting the search and seizure of his editorial materials. Nicholson, 177 Cal. App. 3d at 519. It was the SFPD that ?outed the law in this case by resorting to ?extraordinary measures, not standard investigatory practices,? with no justi?cation. 28 CPR. Mr. Carmody respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion, quash and revoke the search warrants in their entirety, and order the SFPD to return all of the seized property to him immediately. 22 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DATED: May 16, 2019 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE DAN AN . By: W. UThomas R: Burke Attorneys for Non-Party Journalist BRYAN CARMODY 23 MOTION FOR RETURN OF NEWSGATHERING MATERIAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar No. 141930) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAIN LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276?6599 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com DAN LAIDMAN (CA State Bar No. 274482) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAIN LLP 865 Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: danlaidman@dwt.com Attorneys for Non-Party Journalist BRYAN CARMODY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE SEARCH WARRANTS DIRECTED TO NON-PARTY JOURNALIST Misc. Case Assigned to the Hon. Samuel Feng DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY IN SUPPORT OF EX PART APPLICATION OF NON-PARTY JOURNALIST BRYAN CARMODY FOR ORDER QUASHING SEARCH WARRANTS AND FOR RETURN OF IMPROPERLY SEIZED NEWSGATHERING MATERIALS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHORTEN TIME Date: May 21, 2019 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: 22 DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY 1, Bryan Carmody, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a journalist who lives and works in San Francisco, California. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness. I provide this declaration as a summary of the facts relevant to this motion. 2. I began work as a freelance photographer for the Marin Independent Journal beginning in approximately 1989. I soon transitioned to regularly providing video news stories to local media outlets. 3. I was ?rst issued a press pass by the San Francisco Police Department by Chief Prentice E. Sanders when he served as Chief of Police from 2002-2003. My press pass is current and re-authorized yearly by the San Francisco Police Department as recently as 2019. A true and correct copy of my SFPD press pass is attached as Exhibit A. 4. I am the owner of North Bay Television News. I formed this company in January 1992 to operate as a news service. My company shoots and investigates exclusive breaking news stories which we then sell to local, national and international print, online, and broadcast media outlets. Over the years since 1992, my company has worked with approximately 15 associates who also shoot and investigate news stories in the Bay Area. We help gather information, video and photographs for news stories that appear on radio and TV, print and online. We work with reporters and editors at news organizations to collaborate on covering breaking and investigative stories. Our footage is often exclusive and crucial to a news story as I am often the ?rst journalist on scene because I am covering news during evening and late?night hours. 5. Since 1990, I have continuously worked full-time as a freelance journalist. In this capacity, on a daily basis, I routinely interview and speak with individuals who have information about breaking news events, obtain documents, shoot video footage of news scenes like ?res, public safety emergencies and car accidents, and I monitor the activities of law enforcement, and ?re calls and other emergency responses in the Bay Area. My video footage and news reporting have been crucial to documenting news events in San Francisco over the past three decades. As a 1 DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP freelance journalist, I am typically paid for providing my reporting on a news event as a ?package? that includes Video and photographs that I take, witness interviews, public records and other documentary materials. 6. Some recent examples of my news reporting work that I broke as a journalist include: -- On Feb. 22, 2019, a cliff collapsed at a public space in Fort Funston, injuring one Victim and killing another. I was the ?rst reporter at the scene and videoed footage of rescue efforts. I provided this package to six TV stations, all of which used this reporting; -- On March 15, 2019, I was the ?rst reporter at the scene of the fatal car crash that killed a 14?year-old girl who was walking with her mother and dog on John Muir Drive along Lake Merced in San Francisco. I videoed footage of the aftermath of the crash, including the car of the driver involved in the crash. My package of news reporting was purchased and published by six media outlets. This story prompted ?a dozen of [the victim?s] teenage soccer teammates [to make] their way to City Hall to demand safety changes to John Muir Drive.? (Source: The San Francisco Examiner, April 18, 2019); and -- On April 17, 2019, I received information and photographs from a news source concerning a possibly catastrophic malfunction of brand?new Muni equipment on the brand-new trains that thousands of San Francisco residents ride every day. I provided this package to four TV stations, all of which used this reporting. 7. Over the course of my career as a journalist, my reporting work has appeared (in print, online or on television) in or on every publication and station in the Bay Area and many national and international news outlets. This includes, for example, 60 Minutes, ABC News, the Associated Press, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel 9 Australia, CNN, Cross TV, Dateline, ESPN, Fox News, KABC (Los Angeles), KCBS (San Francisco), KDTV (San Jose), KFSN (San Francisco), KGO (San Francisco). KFSN (Fresno), KF TY (Santa Rosa), KNTV (San Jose), KOVR (Sacramento), KPIX (San Francisco), KRNV (Reno), KRON (San Francisco), KTLA (Los Angeles), KVBC (Las Vegas), KYW (Philadelphia), the Mercury News (San Jose), NBC, New York Post, Patchcom, R.T.L. Television (Germany), Real TV (Los Angeles), Telemundo DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP LAN WNONUI National Network, Univision, WABC (New York), WCAU (Philadelphia), Weather Channel, WFOR (Miami), WLS (Chicago), and WUSA (Washington, DC.) 8. On February 22 or 23, 2019. as I was working, I learned through news sources that San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi had died. I believed that the circumstances surrounding the sudden and unexpected death of a prominent, high?ranking elected of?cial were newsworthy and of substantial interest to the public. I followed up 011 this and began calling sources that I have cultivated over the years to uncover what I could learn about this developing news story. I spoke with other journalists and monitored social media as well as any news coverage about Mr. Adachi?s death. Hours after Mr. Adachi?s death, it was reported by another journalist that Mr. Adachi had died while traveling so I began to investigate the city in which Mr. Adachi had died and to follow- up to learn more information. 9. Over the next day, I located and videoed the outside of the apartment building/house at 46 Telegraph Place in San Francisco. Sources told me this was the location where Mr. Adachi had been immediately before he was taken to the hospital. I obtained on and off the record interviews. I obtained relevant documents. I shot video of the documents and related photos. 10. At some point while I was investigating the news of Mr. Adachi?s death, I was provided a copy of a l6-page report, dated February 22, 2019, concerning SF investigation of Mr. Adachi?s death. I did not ask the source to provide me with this document but when it was provided to me, they insisted that I not reveal their identity. I did not pay or provide any compensation whatsoever to this source for providing this report to me nor did I promise them that I would pay or compensate them in the future in any way. I agreed to not reveal the source?s identity and I have not disclosed their name to anyone. Since I made this promise to this source, I have not revealed this source?s identity to anyone. Any and all information and documentary materials that I acquired relating to Mr. Adachi?s death were obtained in the course of my work as a journalist, for the purpose of gathering and disseminating news to the public. 1 1. On February 23, 2019, I provided the video footage that I had shot, information obtained through interviews, information I obtained from sources along with a copy of the police report that I had received to three television stations in the Bay Area as a package. I exercised my editorial 3 DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP discretion in reporting the story and assembling the news package based on these various source materials. Then, as typically happens after I provide such a package, and as is standard practice in the news business, I was not involved in the ?nal editing or decisions about what information the television stations reported about the circumstances of Mr. Adachi?s death. 12. On April 11, 2019, at approximately 2:00 pm, I was visited by two San Francisco Police Of?cers at my home al?. in the Richmond District, in San Francisco. They identi?ed themselves as Lt. Watts and Sgt. Obidi. I invited them into my home. They told me they would like to talk to me regarding the release of the police report. Ultimately. they asked me to reveal the name of my news source who gave me the San Francisco Police report referenced in paragraph 10 above. I told them that I would not reveal the name of this source because I had promised this source con?dentiality. They asked me what I would do if I was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury. I told them that I would not reveal my source and they eventually left. 13. The police did not contact me again until the morning of May 10, 2019, when, after working much of the night before, I awoke to the very loud sound of banging on the front door of my house. I thought that someone was breaking into my home. I went to my door and saw that it was a man wearing a San Francisco Police uniform along with another man in a police uniform who was carrying a Sledgehammer. I opened the door and was immediately surrounded by about a dozen San Francisco police of?cers. They showed me a search warrant, handcuffed me with metal handcuffs, and sat me down in the living room of my home. They initially went through my entire house at gunpoint looking for any other people. Then they proceeded to search my entire home, attic, and garage. For the next six hours. I remained in handcuffs while the of?cers went through everything in my home and inside my cars that were parked in my garage and on the street in front of my home. 14. While the San Francisco Police were searching my home, two individuals who identi?ed themselves to me as being FBI agents took me into my home of?ce and sat with me for approximately ?ve minutes. They presented me with their FBI credentials. No San Francisco Police of?cers were present in the room with the three of us. During this time, the agents repeatedly asked me to reveal the name of my con?dential source. I did not reveal the name of my 4 DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP source. They also asked me if I paid anything to receive the police report. I told them that I had paid nothing. They told me that they were asking because this was possibly a case of ?obstruction of justice.? Other than providing these limited answers. in response to their questioning, I alternated between staying quiet and repeatedly telling the agents that I wanted to speak to a lawyer. Because my hands were handcuffed and my cell phone had been taken, I could not call anyone. At one point they offered to give me my cell phone to make a call, but I declined because I didn?t want to then give them the access code to my phone. They told me they would unlock it for me. 15. During the search of my home, the of?cers apparently learned that I had an of?ce on Fulton Street where I operate my news service. After about three hours, while still in handcuffs, I was escorted from my home, put into the front of a San Francisco Police car, and driven to my of?ce on Fulton Street. We all waited approximately one hour for other of?cers to get a second search warrant. I was then shown another search and was put in a chair while the of?cers searched my of?ce. I was released from handcuffs and the police ?nally left at 1:55 pm. 16. As a result of both searches. San Francisco Police con?scated reporter?s notebooks, papers and a dozen laptops, computers, computer drives, discs, and several cell phones that I use (and have used years before) for my work as a journalist on the hundreds of news stories and investigations that I have worked on as a freelance journalist. Essentially. the San Francisco Police seized my entire news operation. Attached as Exhibit is a copy of the inventory that the San Francisco Police gave me as they left. I estimate the value of the electronics taken from my home and of?ce to be approximately $30,000. Since then, I have had to purchase entirely new equipment and begin to ?gure out how to resume my work and living as a freelance journalist. 17. At no time have I been told by anyone in law enforcement that I am a suspect or will be charged with any crime concerning my work as a journalist, including my newsgathering activities in connection with my reporting on the death of Jeff Adachi. I was not told that I was under arrest during the searches of my home and of?ce. 18. On Monday, May 13, 2019, after my legal counsel had repeatedly made demands to the SFPD to return and not review any of my protected newsgathering materials, I received an 5 DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP l0 ll email from SF PD Lt. Pilar E. Torres. it read: ?Mr. Carmody, Today, i was made aware of your request to have your property returned. Per our discussion on 3/10f19 [sic], we have been diligently working on identifying the items that are relevant to our criminal investigation. The property that is deemed as having no evidentiary value will be turned to you as soon as possible. i apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused you and anticipate that we will be returning most of your property back to you within the week.? In spite ofrny objections and of those of my legal counsel, this email unfortunately con?rmed my understanding that SFPD continues to possess and is in the process of reviewing my protected newsgathering materials. I declare under penalty ot?perjury that the foregoing, is true and correct. Executed this 16?h day of May, 2019, at San Francisco, California. ,aa DECLARATION OF BRYAN CARMODY Case No. EXHIBIT A I i - .. San Francisco Police De . EXPIRES DECEMBER31 .3132. 5:399:30 Paliqe Dig-garment: 09 Pass - u. 55?? CARHODY NAME NORTH BAY TV ms AGENCY -. .- This pass shall only he used by {he person in it has been issued. and need only white actively engnged in item-gathering activity The pass must be won: 011th: mueman gunmen! So that it Is plainly viSIhle. This pass eiiows {he homer io pass ?trough malice and ?re line: for the purpose ufnews gathering. but does not ailow min ctime scene or inlet a restricted area Hazel: entry interferes whit Ihe dunes of mummy Immanuel. o- The user assumes all risks when using lhis pass and agrees in notify Ilie San Francisco Police Depanmcm upon change ofempiuvymenl. This pm is the pmpeny of [he Sm Franciseo Police Depmmem and in subject In revocation and surrender upon demand by an of?cer nr agent of the Sun Fransisco Pnlice Depmmeni. WW Chief of Police CHIEF POLICE EXHIBIT State of California? City of San Francisco SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT - (AFFIDAVIT) - Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2338 swears under oath that the facts expressed by her in the attached and Incorporated Statement of Probable Cause, are true and that based there on he has probable cause to believe and does believe that the person(s), property, described below is/are lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524. as indicated below, and islare now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore. af?ant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. noses SEALING REQUESTED: YES (XX) No( NIGHT SERVICE REQUESTED: YES No (XX) (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by af?davit having been made before me by Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328. that there is probable cause to believe that the property, person(s). andlor things described herein may be found at the locations set forth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 as indicated below by "X?f in'that it: tends to show the property was stolen or embezzled. . tends to Show that a felony has been committed or that a- particular person committed a felony YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: Person(s): . . . . The person of Bryan Carl Carmody, DOB 09-25?1970, California ~further described as a white male, Height: Weight: 24les, Hair: lond. Eyes: Blue Place(s): . San Francisco CA, further described as a two story single family home that is brown in color. The house. is located on the The roof is brown in color. The numbers 'are affixed on the front of the house next to the garage. The garage door is brown in color. There are stairs leading to the front door. The front door is brown in colorand is located behind a black gate. Seeattached photo. . Any safes, outbouses, storage sheds, containers, storage compartments that are capable of storing the iterh(s) to be Sought, located on the grounds of an Francisco CA. . Bryan Carmody's personal cellphone (handset) using From February 22"" 2019 to May 15* 2019. Vehicles: 1: euwvssa (2002 BMW SUV) 2 CA- 2PSU261 (1998 FORD SEDAN) 3~ CA- (2001 BMW SEDAN) 4~ (2004 BMW SEDAN) 5? (1933 BMW) 0- 22A0354 (1985 HONDA) 7- 12X3248 (1991 HONDA) 8- 21 K5609 (2009 YAMAHA) ((06l991 FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSON AND See Exhibit A All information obtaihed through the? execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the object of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to further review, use, or disclosure without a court order. AND IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY, INFORMATION, THINGS, TO SEIZE THEM IF FOUND and bring i?dthem forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court. This Search Warrant and? lncorpor Statemen Probabienause was sworn to as true aha subscribed before me this 3 clay of . 2019 sti?ilr' AM. [@Wherefore, ?nd probable cause for the issuance of this Search Wa?ant and do issue it. Honorable/ Judge of the Superior Court 53 HOBBS SEALING AUTHORIZED: YES a/f (tomsa'm PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department ?$211011: ??1515?:24240 (H 111111131 2. 1111 11:111ij 1301111111011 5111191 6CD010311M1Q 61619111112 M9101 0111119. 1311131116161 (13 1ND 11611101 011116 (13111111119011.1161 1111,1119 \"amd i 1\ 1:01.101 011M. 01311.11 11111110111 CGVEX 5. 3101/1/10,qu 61111 1mm hallww ?JcaW-Wa 3110 1.11 @0113 11111::qu 9. 101 1111 1611101) 10. 1?3 111111111111) 011N613 4b i? 11 11/ OFFICE OP 1TNE [1 ROM Jim; WNW 1 SFPD 315 (REV 0519.9) PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department RECEIVED FROM HATE CASE NUMBER 211011611010 Max:462 ITEMIS) . 1- {1?1 1,91 1:13.11 01/101112 121116 11?00\ AME-17.0111 1.11111: 1131,11 1:161:110191 8111111111111 111231111 1361- s. (11 5111111111111 116211701: 1111; 111:1?? e. c9116:111161 11511 1101113 1271116112911x1 619111111 ?131101112 mumom 139.11 1311er W1C \1Q1120v1 91:01:19,. 112111111161 1171 1'31ng 3111118111161 1111191121 . I gr EWITNESS HECEIV- 1171411? 1,6111? pauuamu :7 .12" 1 10. ML 4 '3 saw-315 PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Po?ce Department lol 033241.40 ecmsum Cmtaw 3? 2. [49(3ch imp phone No? {okwgd HP lgp?xoy 4. ?A?cev dame mm chive 5. fence}. 6. Jg?uuGQr CM 7. ?Bean-tee? compM-er mm W8 . s. MV-zi (WQWEE ~x ?nu?P (0. ?mom 5% Nam-misc A 11 may? drives z? 5" owlm? I WITNESS new? 4215 umalw .. SFPD-315 nun-- PHOPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department Eli/mm ?\qu . . 2- mama. ww? i,\3oo\ Wet Case 4. MCICX- Qd?rwnnow/NW; m??mG? CD case Miner w] CV5 gamma mm w/ cage. go. VMM [and mom 2J ?r QEH 55/) .ER ACCEP ERTY WITNESS (SIGNATURE) v: IGNATUHE) 7 49:16 ?m-aw W1: W, SFPD-315 ?s 0 ..- .7. mm PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Pohce Department RECEIVED FROM Sam ?Es/w; a, ?5H?3%i%4m 0 ?my Cam 2. ?m irkacm OWWQS 3. ex?mm mm deQg 4. Hawk s. (.350 5. MN ?0qu QM. hard chive 7. (1V) ?-33%ng qu? 11. .. OFF TY wrrmass ?mm; #297 . RECEIUEV7C SFPD-315 State of California? City of San Francisco SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT (AFFIDAVIT) Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328 swears under oath that the facts expressed by her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause, are true and that based there on he has probable cause to believe and does believe that the person(s), property, thing(s) described below islare lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524, as indicated below. and talent: now located at the locations set forth below.- Wherefore, affiant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. ?w HOBBS SEALING REQUESTED: YES (XX) I NIGHT SERVICE REQUESTED: N0 (XX) gnalureof .ftiantl (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, proof by af?davit having been made before me by Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328. that there is probable cause to believe that the property, person(s). and/or things described herein may be found at the locations set forth herein and that it is lawfuily seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 as indicated below by in that it: tends to show the property was stolen or embezzled. tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person committed a felony YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: Place(s): . San Francisco CA 94102. . Further Described as a multilevel (4floors) apartment building with the numbers- af?xed on the front entrance. _s further described to be a room with a brown door and the numbers - af?xed to it on a black number plate. Any safes, storage sheds. containers. storage compartments that are capable of storing the item(s) to be sought, located on the grotinds of San Francisco CA. FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSON AND See Exhibit A ((06/99) 1 All information obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the object of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to further review, use, or disclosure without a court order. IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY, INFORMATION, ANDIOR THINGS, TO SEIZE THEM IF FOUND and bring iUthem forthwith before me, or this court. at the courthouse of this court. This Search Warrant and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause was sworn to as true and subscribed before me this {032; day of Pc-vi . 2019 at 1:13 AM. Wherefore. i find probable cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant and do issue it. HOBBS SEALING AUTHORIZED: YESUC) NIGHT SERVICE AUTHORIZED: I N064) 54?73 k/ Honorable Viewa? ?new Judge of the Superior Court City and County of San Francisco. CA. ((06199) 2 PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department MT- 5 1. 2/2622 2. 960% emu; s?mb 3. Diswaw (Md: SNYI 2119216 229% M52 ?w "Ml 005% atom b. MW s?vvw; Mama 5. clrveczTwi WITNESS p- 1" RECEIVED Immna35" ?sewn-315 PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM san Francisco Police Department MN MW 1- Ponce, {2902+ 2. CD (10292 col/Hamm?l 55 ODS 3- Wum?l) shave ~som vam fable?r War 9 Den ?rower ?Ex comgudrer wwer 0) MB drive, 9. Asus Jamar Q) \?vam mum (Qv?gf ,1 CV5 WW om PROF wn?nzss RECEIVED {ii/?x #91328 9? \l (I) SFPD-315 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar No. 141930) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276?6599 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com DAN LAIDMAN (CA State Bar No. 274482) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: danlaidman@dwt.com Attorneys for Non?Party Journalist BRYAN CARMODY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE SEARCH WARRANTS DIRECTED TO NON-PARTY OURNALIST Misc; Case Assigned to the Hon. Samuel Feng AMENDED DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE IN SUPPORT OF EX PAR TE APPLICATION OF NON- PARTY OURNALIST BRYAN CARMODY FOR ORDER QUASHING SEARCH WARRANTS AND FOR RETURN OF IMPROPERLY SEIZED NEWSGATHERIN MATERIALS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHORTEN TIME Date: May 21, 2019 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: 22 AMENDED DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE I, Thomas R. Burke, hereby certify as follows: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before all the courts in the State of California and before this Court. I am a partner in the law ?rm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and am one of the attorneys representing Mr. Carmody to obtain the return of the protected newsgathering materials that were seized from his home and news service office by San Francisco Police on May 10, 2019. I make this declaration from personal knowledge, and a review of the ?les and records in this matter, and could competently testify if called as a witness. 2. At approximately 6:17 pm. on Friday May 10, 2019, I telephoned the San Francisco Police Department and immediately referred to SFPD Of?cer Joseph Tomlinson as someone in the media relations department who had after-hours access to the Chief and others in the Department. I then telephoned Of?cer Tomlinson. I told him that I was an attorney and that I represented Mr. Cannody, a San Francisco journalist, whose home and of?ce had been searched by San Francisco Police earlier that day. I told Of?cer Tomlinson that the execution of a search warrant on a journalist was legally improper under federal and state law and that I needed to speak with someone as soon as possible about this matter. I speci?cally requested that the SFPD not review any of the materials that had been seized from Mr. Cannody?s home and of?ce. Having received no response back to my call, I again telephoned Of?cer Tomlinson at approximately 6:43 pm. to inquire whether he had any information. He said that he had the information that I had told him earlier and my contacts and that someone with SFPD would get back to me. I reiterated to him the urgency of the matter and my request that none of the materials taken from Mr. Carmody?s home and of?ce be reviewed. 3. On Saturday morning, May 11, 2019, at approximately 11:30 am, I telephoned David Stevenson, media liaison. I explained who I was and why I was calling. Mr. Stevenson immediately con?rmed that he knew of my calls to Of?cer Tomlinson the night before. Mr. Stevenson said that he had my contact information that that someone with SFPD would get back to me. Although I never heard any response back from either Mr. Stevenson or Of?cer 1 AMENDED DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Tomlinson, over the weekend, I read public comments in the press made by Of?cer Tomlinson supporting the propriety of the search warrants executed by SF PD. 4. Having received no response from the San Francisco Police Department, on the afternoon of May 14, 2019, on behalf of Mr. Cannody, I sent a letter to San Francisco Police Chief William Scott in which I detailed my concerns about the impropriety of the searches of Mr. Carmody?s home and news service of?ce and my efforts to reach the Department. In this letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, I requested that SFPD immediately return all of the papers and newsgathering equipment that it seized to Mr. Carmody (or his counsel) or, at a minimum, con?rm that the San Francisco Police Department has taken all appropriate steps to ensure that none of Mr. Carmody?s con?scated newsgathering materials are reviewed until the Court has an opportunity to hear Mr. Carmedy?s objections to the searches. I asked that the Department respond to my request by Noon on May 14, 2019. This deadline came and went without any response by Chief Scott or anyone from the Department. 5. After news of the execution of the search warrants on Mr. Carmody?s home and of?ce became known, several journalism organizations issued proclamations denouncing the use of search warrants by San Francisco Police to seize his protected newsgathering materials. Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of statements issued by The Reporter?s Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Committee to Protect Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists (both Nationally and it?s Northern California Chapter), the National Writers Union and the International Federation of Journalists. 6. The afternoon of May 16, 2019, I learned that this motion would be heard by the Hon. Judge Samuel eng, Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division in Department 22 on May 21, 2019 at 9:00 am. at the Hall of Justice, located at 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco, California. At approximately 1:23 pm, I gave notice of all of this to Sean F. Connolly, Deputy City Attorney, by phone (415) 554-3 863. As of the ?nalizing of this declaration counsel have not indicated if SFPD opposes the requested relief. 2 AMENDED DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE Case No. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP I declare under penalty of pteury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 16th day of May, 2019, at sm?if?nia. Thomas R. Burke 3 AMENDED DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURKE Case No. EXHIBIT A IL: Wri ht gg?t?gliigomery Street I Tremal ne LLP San Francisco, CA 94111?6533 Thomas R. Burke (415) 276-6552 tel (415) 276?6599 fax thomasburke@dwt.com May 13, 2019 Via handgeiiverv and electronic mail William Scott Chief of Police San Francisco Police Department 1245 31rd Street San Francisco, CA 94158 Re: Search Warrants Executed on 5/10/19 at the Home and Of?ce? of Veteran San Francisco Journalist Bryan Carmody Dear Chief Scott: This law ?rm represents Bryan Carmody, a veteran San Francisco freelance journalist, whose home and of?ce were searched by San Francisco Police on May 10, 2019, and whose protected newsgathering materials and equipment was seized and are now in the custody of SFPD. We write to memorialize our request (?rst made this past Friday evening) that the San Francisco Police immediately return these improperly seized materials, or, at a minimum, not review any of the materials (including reporters? notebooks, paperwork and more than a dozen laptops and cellphones) that were seized from Mr. Carmody this past Friday, until his legal challenge to the search and seizure is fully resolved. See SFPD Receipt, enclosed. Indisputably, these materials are protected by Califomia?s shield law (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Cal. Evidence Code 1070), Penal Code Section 1524(g), and the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000a) and should not have been con?scated by San Francisco Police in the ?rst instance. There is no conceivable basis here for the SFPD to claim any ?exigency? exception to bypass these well?established protections for journalists like Mr. Carmody. To the contrary, San Francisco Police ?rst visited Mr. Cannody at his home in the outer Richmond District on April 1 1th and repeatedly asked him to identify the source who gave him a police report concerning the death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. When Mr. Carmody respectfully declined to reveal his source he was threatened with a federal grand jury subpoena. Mr. Carmody steadfastly refused to identify his con?dential source and the of?cers left. Anchorage Bellevue Los Angeles I New York Portland I San Francisco I Washington, D.C Chief William Scott San Francisco Police Department May 13, 2019 Page 2 On May 10, 2019, San Francisco Police returned to his home. They handcuffed and detained Mr. Carmody for several hours inside his home while nearly a dozen armed of?cers executed a search warrant. During the course of the search, of?cers learned of Mr. Carmody?s of?ce on Fulton Street. The police then obtained a second search warrant and drove Mr. Carmody to his office where they carried out a second search while Mr. Carmody remained in handcuffs. As a result of both searches, San Francisco Police con?scated over a dozen laptops, computers, and cellphones that Mr. Carmody uses (and has previously used years ago) for his work as a journalist on literally hundreds of news investigations over the past three decades. The San Francisco Police Department seized and has control of his entire news operation illustrating vividly why such search warrants are not permitted under federal and state law. On Friday evening, I twice spoke with San Francisco Of?cer Joseph Tomlinson. I explained my concerns and asked someone from the Department to immediately contact me and to provide assurances that the newsgathering materials con?scated from Mr. Carmody would not be reviewed by law enforcement. Having heard nothing back, on Saturday morning I called the Department?s media liaison, David Stevenson, who acknowledging knowing of my earlier calls to Of?cer Tomlinson. I reiterated my concerns to Mr. Stevenson a former journalist who had worked with Mr. Carmody now with the Department. I was assured SFPD had received my concerns and knew how to reach me. As of this writing, we have yet to hear any response from the Department. I similarly reached out to the San Francisco District Attorney?s Of?ce on Friday evening and early Sunday morning, and was informed through an email that the San Francisco District Attorney did not review either of the search warrants that were executed on Mr. Carmody?s home and of?ce. On behalf of Mr. Carmody, we request that SFPD immediately return all of the papers and newsgathering equipment that it seized to Mr. Carmody (or his counsel) or, at a minimum, con?rm that the San Francisco Police Department has taken all appropriate steps to ensure that none of Mr. Carmody?s confiscated newsgathering materials are reviewed until the Court has an opportunity to hear Mr. Carmody?s objections to the searches. If we do not receive continuation by Noon on May 14, 2019 that the Department is returning the seized items and that they have not been, and will not be, reviewed, we will have no choice but to seek relief from the Court. This letter is sent without waiver of any of Mr. Carmody?s legal defenses, claims, rights, privileges, remedies, or responses, all of which are expressly reserved.1 We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. 1 We hope that this matter can be resolved without the need for Court intervention. However, we note that in addition to California law providing for the return of these items g. Cal. Penal Code 1538 1540; 1524(g)), the federal Privacy Protection Act provides Chief William Scott San Francisco Police Department May 13, 2019 Page 3 Sincerely, TremainegLPi Thomas R. Burke DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Bryan Carmody cc: Hon. Garrett L. Wong, Presiding Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court (Via Hand-Delivery) Hon. Samuel eng, Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division, San Francisco County Superior Court (Via Hand~De1ivery) Enclosure journalists like Mr. Carmody with a cause of action against public of?cials who improperly seize newsgathering materials, and allows them to recover actual and statutory damages, as well as their attorneys? fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, 2000aa-6; Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1121 (N .D. Cal. 2011) (photojournalist whose camera was seized could bring PPA claim against the chief of the UC Berkeley police department). To this end, we request that the SFPD preserve all documents relevant to this matter. State of California? City of San Francisco SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT (AFFIDAVIT) - Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328 swears under oath that the facts expressed by her? In the attached and Incorporated Statement of Probable Cause, are true and that based there on he has probable cause to believe and does believe that the person(s) property, andlor thing(s) described below islare lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524. as indicated below and is/are now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore. aft? ant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. 7i: noose SEALING REQUESTED: YES (XX) um I k. NIGHT SERVICE REQUESTED: YES N0 (XX) ?Sig'?i??e airman) (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by af?davit having been made before me by Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328 that there Is probable cause to believe that the property, perscn(s) and/or things described herein may be found at the iocations set forth herein and that it Is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 as indicated below by In that it: tends to show the property was stolen or embezzled. tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a panicuIai- person committed a felony YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: Person(s): The person of Bryan Carl Carmody, DOB 09-25? 1970 California DL "further described asawhite male Height: 6' Weight: 240le Hair: Blond, Eyes: Blue Place(s): - San Francisco CA, further described as a two sto single family home that is brown in color. The house Is located on the The roof' Is brown" In color. The numbers-are affixed on the front of the house next to the garage. The garage door 13 brown in color. There are stairs leading to the front door The front door' Is brown in color and is located behind a black gate See attached photo 0 Any safes, outhcuses, storage sheds containers storage compartments that are capable of storing the iterh(s) to be sought located on the grounds of_ San Francisco CA. . Bryan Carmody? 3 personal cellphone (handset) using From February 22"d 2019 to May 15* 2019. . Vehicles: 6UWY583 (2002 BMW SUV) 2- 2PSU261 (1998 FORD SEDAN) 3? CA- 6FAP022 (2001 BMW SEDAN) 4~ CA- (2004 BMW SEDAN) 5 8Y7666 (1983 BMW) 6- 22A0354 (1985 HONDA) 7- 12X3248 (1991 HONDA) 8? 21 K5609 (2009 YAMAHA) {(06199) FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSON AND THINGIS): See ExhibitA All information obtairied through the? execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the object of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to further review use, or disclosure without a court order AND IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY, INFORMATION, THINGS, TO SEIZE THEM IF FOUND and bring it/them forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court. This Search Warrant and. lncorp Statemen Probable?ause was sworn to as true aha subscribed before me this day of 2019 at)" I it AM I@Wh_erefore, i ?nd probable cause for the issuance of this Search Wa?ant and do Issue it. HOBBS SEALING AUTHORIZED: YES NIGHT SERVICE AUTHORIZED: i Honorable/2 Judge of the Superior Court ty'of San Francisco, CA. (Ingram PROPERTY FORM San Francisco Police Department ?151111111 ?1?3??53134140 (U 8111113111101 +1101 191 2. 111 111113191? 1011111111111 51111121 ecpcaomMia 91011111112 1/1de 0111112 1911111116161 ('13 1111161 0111116, ?(131111111951 11151 1111111119 \"owxd 1X 11an 5114126. 01112111 111111111121 61111611 6. (11 Qumequ c111 1111011111 mm 11111111? 7. (km: 17?911111111 "17111191113110 8. {11 1901111 CWQMAM 1:91.11qu 9. 11:1 1111 101111013 01110111111311 1151:1113 {1?1 1411111110 01111111; . ,1 11 3?11 11:1 1191,? RECEIWROM (mam-runs} SFPD- 315 (REV. 05/99) n. - f' 9? PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department RECEIVED FROM -. 1 ?551113553941 :14 ?1 1 1- 1,571 ?611 011th I 2- (11 1111111 111101 a. {11 1111111170111 1511111411 151)? 1111413111111 4. 1111111 111111 11101111 131K 5. 1 11 1111111111 111112.911 1111; 1111:1119 a. 1'11 91.111111311115131 111 111 1:11.11 7- $1131 11M 1j1r1011? a. 111? 1111-1111-1111 JCEU 1.1101119 9- 1/1\ 1C. 111101/1e. {?11 L01 11/111191 111118111161 11001111 I i} I op 1 m?r; #15an 131 A Jwrmess HECEIU- (SIGNATURE) 6&3? lji?vv ?(ff 16%? Mal 4V 51:110-315 .PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco PoIice Department 5I I. (I) eumsImq (nod am 31 r2? Iaqoc?zm IIQII (goIoIginI? IopIoIg CNDISAIOOSIRQ 4 (I) )3va GIINQ s. a. Invigr GIN IBM 005v 7. 7II "EgQngeH I?wef (50 BI (EIWIL I. WI 9. (Iv-:1 OWE. Imam? I mm swam macaw GIVIVQSW 777077 Iii: me We, WC PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Peirce Department we 7 2. indICI'a. 3. IPOOI gage 4. IJICICIZ 699cm eeII-I-Imjf 5. 6. NIAHQ II?ch ??20 CaIb 7. mi?pmk; a. case w! 9. 7? w/ 534%? I0. m; vxsum Iomd IquIe-I I.- I I (aw-{WI SFPD-315 - awn?.- .. PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Pohce Department RECEIVED FROM CASE NUMEER A 0%4140 1? at: disk: 2. Km Ham 3. 9&9va mm (3ng 4. Hack obi?wee is. my ?0?qu 2th drive, 7. (1V Wino; my? wow 8. 9? 9. 10. 11URE) RECEIVE RDA inmw? SFPD-315 State of California- City of San Francisco SEARCH WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT (AFFIDAVIT) Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328 swears under oath that the facts expressed by her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause, are true and that based there on he has probable cause to believe and does believe that the person(s), property, andfor thing(s) described below islare lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524. as indicated below. and islare now located at the locations set forth below.- Wherefore, af?ant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. HOBBS SEALING REQUESTED: YES (XX) NO NIGHT SERVICE REQUESTED: NO (XX) (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by af?davit having been made before me by Sergeant Joseph Obidi #2328, that there is probable cause to believe that the property, person(s), andlor things described herein may be found at the locations set forth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 as indicated below by in that it: lgnature of en!) tends to show the property was stolen or embezzled. tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person committed a felony YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: Place(s): . San Francisco CA 94102. 0 Further Described as a multilevel (4floors) apartment building with the numbers -af?xed on the front entrance. Room number-is further described to be a room with a brown door and the numbers .af?xed to it on a black number plate. a Any safes, storage sheds. containers. storage compartments that are capable of storing the item(s) to be sought, located on the grounds of San Francisco CA. FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSON AND See Exhibit A ((06/99) 1 All information obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the object of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to further review, use, or disclosure without a court order. IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY, INFORMATION, THINGS, TO SEIZE THEM IF FOUND and bring itlthem forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court. This Search Warrant and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause was sworn to as true and subscribed before me this {gm day of it?! . 2019 at AM. Wherefore, i ?nd probable cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant and do issue it. HOBBS SEALING AUTHORIZED: YES NIGHTSERVICE N064) Honorable Wendie We: ecu-J03 Judge of the Superior Court 1'3 City and County of San Francisco, CA. ((06l99) 2 PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department sham Mme CWO: amp 216% 2. 950% 5%.on SM) ?rm [groguwqu 7916531 3. Wax/um (weak 3M: ?162.1?w33m_ 4. Mr. ?w aw. "73% 00an ram 6M4 b. we [wt-m sch-w: ?bowmzw MM 5, Lil/?904. w? 32A ia. 444/ 9. yaw {swag ?15 RECENWTUHEJ SFPD-315 PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM San Francisco Police Department 7:7me 9 5? ?atom ?raw 3534 Mo 0 Pow, (9,90% 2- LA CD COKGQ cot/tiammq 55 095 a. Wumb (Aviva ~de OHM: a, (D3 Mohvom Tame?r 5. (H a. tower Q) compunler a. Q) UKSE drive, a. m. \vam (43?ng 17:1.) CV5 ?q ?[uvvw' RECEIVED FW RE) Vt . .. saws-315 EXHIBIT PROTECTING SOURCES AND MATERIALS Reporters Committee calls for investigation into search of journalist Bryan Carmody's home and office REPORTERS COMMITTEE - May 13, 2019 The San Francisco Police Department executed search warrants for the home and of?ce of San Francisco-based freelance journalist Bryan Carmody on May 10 as part of a criminal investigation into the leak of a con?dential police report that had been provided to Carmody by a con?dential source. During the raid, police seized electronic devices, notes and documents including a copy of the report belonging to Carmody. The report revealed details of the Feb. 22 death of San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi. Two weeks prior to the search, police of?cers from the San Francisco Police Department asked Carmody who had provided him with a copy of the report. Carmody declined to identify his con?dential source. An FBI spokesperson con?rmed that while agents did not participate in the execution of the warrant, they were present and interviewed Carmody. ?Reporters rely on con?dential sources to inform the public, and state and federal laws and regulations exist to protect reporters from being forced to disclose the identity of those sources. Any search targeting a journalist?s con?dential material is a particularly egregious affront to First Amendment rights and should be investigated thoroughly,? said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ?Mr. Carmody?s devices and work product should be returned immediately.? Gabe Rottman, director of the Technology and Press Freedom Project, who tracks federal leak investigations and prosecutions for the Reporters Committee, added: ?Although this is a state matter, the Justice Department?s news media guidelines require attorney general approval before the DOJ can subject a journalist to questioning for conduct arising out of newsgathering. It will be essential to determine if those guidelines were followed in this case, given the FBI interviewed Mr. Carmody during the search.? Security cam era footage shows police during a raid on the home of freelancer Bryan armed y, in San Francisco, on May 10. Of?cers con?scated electronic devices and documents. (Bryan armed y) San Francisco police raid freelancer Bryan Carmody's home May 13, 2019 5:02 PM ET New York May 13, 2019~~The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned a raid by San Francisco police on the home of freelance journalist Bryan Carmody, and called on authorities to immediately return electronic devices, documents, and other seized property. Between eight and 10 police of?cers executed a search warrant on Carmody?s home in San Francisco on May 10, as part of an investigation into how the reporter obtained a con?dential police report, Carmody told CPJ. The Los Angeles Times reported that police used a Sledgehammer to open the gate to the property, handcuffed Carmody, and then executed a second search warrant on the home of?ce that he uses as a newsroom. They took notebooks, computers, cameras, phones, and a copy of the police report, Carmody said. Police had previously come to the reporter's house to ask him for the name of the person who provided the con?dential police report, but Carmody declined their request, according to multiple reports. David Snyder, executive director of the free expression advocacy organization the First Amendment Coalition, told the LA. Times that the search violated California's shield law, which protects journalists' relationships with sources. According to the northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the law bars authorities from executing a warrant on documents collected as part of newsgathering. "The police raid on freelance journalist Bryan Carmody?s home sends a chilling message to all local media," said North America program coordinator Alexandra Ellerbeck. "Authorities should immediately return his equipment, stop pressuring him to reveal the identity of his sources, and pledge to follow California's shield law. The raid is related to a police report about the February 22 death of San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi, according to reports. Carmody put together a news package, which included the leaked document and additional reporting, that he provided to three television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to local reports. Carmody told CPJ that police seized tens of thousands of dollars of equipment from his home, making it impossible for him to continue working as a reporter. In a statement emailed to CPJ, police spokesperson Joseph S. Tomlinson said, "The citizens and leaders of the city of San Francisco have demanded a complete and thorough investigation into this leak, and this action represents a step in the process of investigating a potential case of obstruction of justice along with the illegal distribution of con?dential police material." Snyder and Carmody's lawyer, Thomas Burke, described the search as unlawful. ?It's designed to intimidate," Burke told the LA Times. "It's essentially the con?scation of a newsroom." "They are trying to root out the source, and that's the core of what California's journalist shield law protects," Snyder said. Short URL: Committee to Protect Journalists Committee to Protect Journalists 330 7th Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 Except Where noted, text on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons 4.0 International License. (http: creativecommons.org licenses by-nc-nd 4.0 Images and other media are not covered by the Creative Commons license. For more information about permissions, see our FAQs (http: .org/about/faqphp) . What are you iooking for? Type it here. Society of Professional Journalists Improving and protectingjournalism since 1909 Home SPJ NGWS SPJ condemns San Francisco PD's home rain: to obtain source's name SPJ News Latest SPJ News I RSS SPJ condemns San Francisco home raid to obtain source?s name 5/13/2019 Tweet I CONTACT: J. Alex Tarquinio, SPJ National President, 212-283-0843, atarqulnto@5p1.0rg Jennifer Royer. SPJ Director of Communications and Marketing, 317-361-4134. jroyer?spl.org IN DIANAPOLIS The Society of Professional Journalists condemns the over-the?top actions of the San Francisco Police Department in searching and seizing equipment and notes from the home ofa journalist in an apparent effort to obtain the Identity of the journalist's con?dential source. The home of freelance video journalist Bryan Carmody was raided Friday by eight to 10 police officers who tried to break into his front gate with a Sledgehammer. Once Carmody teamed they had a search warra nt, he let them in. They proceeded to search his home, guns drawn. and took notebooks, computers, phones, cameras and other personal property. Earlier, Carmody had refused to reveal the source of a confidential police report on the Feb. 22 death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. ?The extremes that the San Francisco Police Department went to are outrageous, especially when California has one of the strongest Shield Laws in the country to protect journalists from being held in contempt for refusing to disclose their sources' identities." said J. Alex Ta rquinio. SPJ national president. As the SPJ NorCaI Chapter pointed out in Its statement, California Penal Code section 1524(g} provides that ?no warrant shall issue? for any item protected by the Shield Law. The NorCai Freedom of information Committee is seeking more information on the raid, including why these laws were not adhered to. News and More Click to Expand instantly - SPJ News - Events and Deadlines Quill iournallst?s Toolbox Tweets by?splaiwects Society of Prolassronal Journalists Rem-Jailed J. Alex Torqulnio @aiexierqunnlo 'We still do not know why he was klled. or where ls his corpse.? Hence Cenglz( amen. .. -- ?ancee of Jamal Khashoggl, tells QHouaeForeign. She calls for us. to put pressure on Saudi Arabia. cc: . pi tweets #Preu .- #JusilcelorJema: in Society of a. Fietweeted J. Alex Tmulnio @aIextarqulnio A1 @HouuForeiqn hearing on global #PressFraedom issues with Jamal Khaahoggi's ?ancee. Helios Cengiz. QJoelcp;. executive director of @pressfroodom. is talking about the impact of technological smothering of pumalists by China's surveillance state. cc: @serwoeta 2h Socraty or Professional Journalists Retweeted Embed View on Twitter Search oor Join SP Renew - ADVEI Advert "One expects this level of disregard for the value of press freedom in an autocratic country without the First Amendment,? Tarquinio said. ?In this country,journaiists have the right to gather and report on information. They also have the right to protect their sources. The seizure of anyjournalist's notes or equipment sets a dangerous precedent." We call on the San Francisco Police Department to return Carmody's belongings in the condition they were in when confiscated. They must not search the hard drives of his computers or other devices for information they have no right to obtain under California law. We also renew our call to lawmakers to pass a strong Federal Shield Law to make it clear that journalists have the right to protect their sources as a fundamentai tenet of freedom of the press and the First Amendment. This is crucial to a functioning democracy. SPJ promotes the free ?ow of information vital to informing citizens; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and fights to protect First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member, give to the Legal Defense Fund, orgive to the SPJ Foundation. Copyright 19962019 Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. 00?? Legal 1 Policies Society of Professional Journalists Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center 3909 N. Meridian St., Suite 200 indianapolis, IN 46208 317-927?8000 Contact SPJ Headquarters Employment Opportunities Advertise with SPJ SPJ.ORG Home Quill Journalist's Toolbox Excellence in Journalism Calendar News Career Center About SPJ SPJ Foundation Headquarters Staff Board of Directors Legal Defense Fund Awards Donate Advertise I. moms n' Members SPJ Members Join SPJ Why Join? Chapters/Local Missions and Resources Our Mission Journalism Training Freedom of Information Ethics Diversity Freelancers Students Educators international Generation SPJ NorCal - Society of Professional Journalists Northern California ix'csuurrcs About SPJ Board - Contact Us ['11 (D 1-.- - May 12, 2019 0 by - in 13g, News SPJ orCal Committee Condemns Search of Freelancer Bryan Carmody as Attack on First Amendment SAN FRANCISCO SPJ NorCal?s Freedom of Information Committee condemns the recent raid by law enforcement of freelance journalist Bryan Carmody, in an apparent attempt to identify the con?dential source who provided Carmody with a copy of a police report detailing the circumstances of former San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi?s death. During the search, law enforcement of?cers seized documents, notes and a slew of digital devices from Carmody?s home and of?ce. California?s Shield Law protects journalists from being held in contempt for refusing to disclose their sources? identities and other unpublished/mated information obtained during the news gathering process (California Constitution, Article I, 39 California Evidence Code 1070(a)). California Penal Code section 1524(g) provides that ?no warrant shall issue? for any item protected by the Shield Law. The Freedom of Information Committee is seeking more information on the raid, including why these laws were not adhered to. That this search was carried out weeks after Carmody declined a request from San Francisco police to divulge his sources shows an alarming disregard for the right to gather and report on information. Approaches to reporting on Adachi?s death varied among local news outlets. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics directs: not pay for access to news? and says reporters should ?avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.? Journalists should consider the motivations of anonymous sources and news organizations should disclose when content has been provided by outside sources, whether paid or not. While there may be legitimate questions on the circumstances surrounding the reporting of Adachi?s death, the seizure of any journalist?s notes or other reporting materials sets a dangerous precedent. An attack on the rights of one journalist is an attack on the rights of all journalists. San rancisco?s wrongful actions against Carmody threaten fundamental journalistic freedoms which are vital to a functioning democracy. Contact SPJ NorCal Freedom of Information Committee co-chaz'rs Matt Drange and Aaron Field: com Connect with Us Get Updates From SPJ NorCal - Home About SPJ - Board 0 Contact Us 2013 SPJ-Northern California. All Rights Reserved. HOME ABOUT CHAPTERS ISSUES WE CARE ABOUT NEWS WHY CONTACT US )l ll You are here: Home I News Police ?Confiscate a Newsroom" to Try to Reveal a Con?dential Source Police ?Confiscate aNewsroom? to Try to Reveal a Confldentlal Source by Larry Goldbetter, May 15, 2019 Join the Become a Union Member JOIN NOW Who Can Join? Learn more about our Membership Loq in to Renew Your Membership Alreadv a member? Loqin National News UAW News Take Action Political and became News NWU News Member News Labor My International SoHdar?y Industry News LEW Security camera captures police raid on Bryan Carmody's home On Friday, May IO, ten San Francisco police officers and two FBI agents raided the home of freelancejournalist and videographer Bryan Carmody. They showed up with sledge hammers and battering rams with guns drawn, and a search warrant looking for ?stolen or embezzled" property. In reality, they were not so much looking for a leaked police report about the death of San Francisco's Public Defender Joe Adachi. What they were actually looking for was the confidential source who leaked the report. Bryan was handcuffed for six hours while the police seized about $30,000 worth of computers, ipads, cameras and other digital equipment, including those of his fianc?e, effectively putting him out of business despite a 29?year career as a reporter and cameraman. His attorney Thomas Burke told NWU, the police ?seized everything he has ever worked on or that he is currently working on." He said, they ?essentially confiscated a newsroom." He has not been charged with a crime, yet the police are trying to hold his equipment for the duration of the investigation. The San Francisco Chronicle has the same leaked report. Why didn?t the police kick down their doors as well? The National Writers Union condemns the illegal police raid on the home and workplace of Bryan Carmody. We demand that all of his equipment be returned to him immediately and that the SFPD stop their harassment so that he can continue to work as a journalist. Wejoin the growing chorus of voices that condemn this illegal raid as a violation of California's shield law, which according to the northern California Society of Professional Journalists, bars authorities from executing a warrant on documents collected as part of newsgathering. We urge everyone reading this statement to donate to Bryan?s gofundme page so that he can begin to replace his equipment and get back to work. LINKS Our Mission Historv and Achievements Issues We Care About Who We Represent .LeLdetsme Grievance and Contract Division Governance/Committees ISSUES WE CARE ABOUT Writers? Pay, Cogyright, Freedom of Exgression, Diversity, Writer Health and Safetv. Shield Bill RESOURCES Contact Us Contract and Grievance Assistance 5A9. SPANISH LANGUAGE DIVISION Sindicato Nacionai de Escritores PARTNERSHIP NWU is the soie provider of E. Press Passes to freeiancejournaiists 1 in the US. ADDIV for a Press Pass NWUSO Meet the non?profit arm ofthe National Writers' Union. 2019 I National Writers Union IAN rights reserved I Twitter I Facebook I Log in a international ho: Federation of Journalists WHO WHAT WHERE ACTIONS MEDIA CENTRE PRESS CARD DONATE News and Press Releases 1* Media centre News United Stales:journaiists' house raided by police Categories Campaign against impunity 2018 Press Releases Fair Contracts for Journalists Issues Regions Safety 16 May 2019 United States: journalists' house raided by police Freelance journalist Bryan Carmody's house was searched by the San Francisco Police on May 10 after he refused to reveal his source. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its af?liate the National Writers Union (NWU) condemn an illegal raid. nalinnal ill i UAW LOCAL 1931 AIL-C10 The raid was carried out by a dozen police officers armed with guns and siedgehammers. Bryan Carmody was handcuffed during six hours and the a International 'I-o Federation 5 of Journalists international Federation of Journalists 3 IPC-Residence Palace Rue de la Loi 155 8?1040 Brussels, Belgium +32 (0)2 235 22 00 +32 (0)2 255 22 19 ifj@ifj.org Copyright 2019. IFJ - International Federation of Journalists. All rights reserved According to the NWU. the police was looking for the source who provided Camrodngh 5 leakeg?iggort' on th?evgeEaRtFi c} the Adachi in February 2019. This report was described as "stolen or embezzled PRESS CARD DONATE by the search warrant. The NWU said: "We demand that all of Bryan Carmady?s equipment he returned to him immediately and that the San Francisco Police Department stop their harassment so that he can continue to work as a journalist. We join the growing chorus of voices that condemn this illegal raid as a violation of Califamia?s shield lam" General Secretary Anthony Beiianger said: "We join our a?iliate in condemning intimidation on Bryan Carmody. The protection of journalists' sources is a key pillar of media freedom and the US police must accept this. Any state that calls itself a democracy must respect press ??eedom and journalists' rights. We call on the US authorities to respect the FirstAmendment of their Constitution and promote an enabling environment for joumalists so that they can work without pressure. For more information. please contact on +32 2 235 22 16 The represents more than 600,000 journalists in 146 countries Follow the IFJ on Twitter and Facebook Subscribe to News About IFJ Quick links The international Federation of Journalists is the Global unions Press card global voice of journalists. Ethical journal ism Founded in 1926, it is the world?s largest organisation initiative of journalists, representing 600.000 media professronals in 187 unions and associations in more Subscribe to News than 140 countries. Type your E-mail 0 Privacy policy Sitemap i by Webl