Title: In re Inquest Subpoena (WCAX)

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Inquest Subpoena (WCAX) (2005-004); 179 Vt. 12; 890 A.2d 1240

2005 VT 103

[Filed 26-Aug-2005]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2005 VT 103

                                No. 2005-004


  In re Inquest Subpoena (WCAX)	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                                 March Term, 2005


  Linda Levitt, J.

  Robert V. Simpson, Jr., Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, for
    Appellant.

  Eric S. Miller and Debra L. Bouffard of Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C.,
    Burlington, for Appellee Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc.

  Arthur P. Anderson of Anderson & Buran PC, Burlington, for Amicus Curiae
    WPTZ-TV.

  Robert B. Hemley of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for Amici Curiae Gannett
    Vermont Publishing, Times Argus Association and Herald Association.

  Lucy A. Dalglish, Gregg P. Leslie and Grant D. Penrod, Arlington, Virginia,
    for Amicus Curiae The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

  Kevin M. Goldberg of Cohn and Marks LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae
    American  Society of Newspaper Editors.

  Kathleen A. Kirby of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus
    Curiae Radio-Television News Directors Association.

  Bruce W. Sanford and Robert D. Lystad of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington,
    DC, for Amicus  Curiae Society of Professional Journalists.

  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Gibson, J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.    In the early morning hours of October 21,
  2004, what began as a celebration of the historic victory of the Boston Red
  Sox over the New York Yankees in the American League Championship Series
  turned into a riot on the campus of the University of Vermont.  Signs and
  light poles were knocked down, a vehicle was overturned, windows were
  broken, and four fires were set.  Damage amounted to $30,000.  A local
  television station, WCAX, sent two camera operators and a reporter to the
  scene and took about forty-four minutes of videotape of the riot in
  progress.  Of that material, only a few minutes were aired on the station's
  broadcast news program.  The segment that aired showed persons, presumably
  students, committing some of the crimes and vandalism described above.  

       ¶  2.  The day after the riot, the Chittenden County State's Attorney
  applied to the superior court for an inquest, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 5131. 
  The application included a University of Vermont police officer's
  affidavit, and asked the court to issue a subpoena for the unaired video
  footage, or "out takes," of the riot.  WCAX moved to quash the subpoena on
  First Amendment grounds, and the State moved to open the inquest subpoena
  filings to the public.

       ¶  3.  Unlike many other states, Vermont has no statute protecting
  information obtained by news media, and no party has raised a question of
  the applicability of any provision of the Vermont Constitution to this
  dispute.  WCAX's argument is that the First Amendment to the United States
  Constitution excuses it from surrendering the tape.

       ¶  4.  The trial court heard the matter on December 9, 2004.  The
  court indicated at the outset that WCAX was entitled to a qualified
  privilege that could be overcome only if the State had made sufficient
  efforts to exhaust other, nonprivileged sources of information.  At that
  time, the trial court was not satisfied with the State's efforts.  The
  State did more investigation and asked the court to issue a second
  subpoena.  The court heard the case on the second request and again held
  that the State had not met its burden to adequately investigate other
  avenues of information.
   
       ¶  5.  Applying its understanding of our decision in State v. St.
  Peter, 132 Vt. 266,