Police denial of press passes becomes area of contention for three journalists

There is a striking difference between access to public information and access to locations that cross police or fire lines. Without a doubt, journalists and the general public have equal access to information filed publicly. There is, however, the courtesy of press credentials [1] that police commissioners distribute only to news-gathering organizations. Unlike the Joe Schmoe citizen, the media has a compelling duty to impartially cover items that are of public interest and/or newsworthy. These press passes do not necessarily grant all reporters access to certain locations that cross police lines, but they do serve as ways to identify journalists “who should be admitted if members of the media are to be admitted.” [1] I will argue that police commissioners can deny press passes to reporters in the event that access to certain locations poses a threat to public safety. I will support the argument that the police commissioners should cap the distribution of press passes to a certain number of reporters only if they provide specific and legitimate reasons why their access is being denied.

Three journalists (Rafael Martinez Alequin, Ralph E. Smith, and David Wallis) filed a lawsuit against New York City on Nov. 12 after the New York Police Department refused to renew their press identification cards. [2] Ideally, press passes must be renewed each year in order for journalists to cross the police or fire lines. After going a year without using their press passes and being denied the renewal of their press credentials again this year, these journalists insisted that the police department’s actions were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On Feb. 20, the journalists filed suit in state court challenging the Police Department’s “refusal to disclose information about its policy for issuing press passes to journalists.” [3] Arguably, these journalists were denied their First Amendment right to gather information that would eventually be published. These police officers took a vague approach in deciding who could and could not access scenes that are behind police and fire lines. Since the NYPD was not specific in its reasons for refusing these reporters access to the scene, there is too much discretion on the government’s part. The reporters cannot predict or determine whether or not their ability to access certain locations and to ask questions to certain local authorities will be restrained. These press passes are the vital tools that provide clarity and certainty that these reporters have access to the certain newsworthy scenes to which the public would otherwise have no access. It is important that the journalists do their job of serving the public interest without the hindrance of an overly vague police restriction.

Not only would some argue that the police department’s actions were unconstitutional based on vagueness, but they also thought they discriminated against journalists who do not cover police or fire related stories on a regular basis. It is possible that the police categorized them into the less privileged body of news-gathering organizations. However, these three journalists held press credentials in the past and worked for legitimate news organizations. Wallis had his press identification from 1994 to August 2007, when “his petition to obtain the card again was denied without explanation.” [2] He does news coverage for over 1,500 publications worldwide. Smith publishes on a website for black law enforcement workers. He had his press credential from 1996 to January 2007, when the police refused to renew his press pass. Smith went as far as to ask for a written explanation for the denial but has not received a response yet. For Alequin, he had been working for a publication in New York from 1983 to 2001. When his wife passed away, he decided to launch an online publication in 2003 and start blogging in 2007. He had a working press card from 1986 to 2000 and from 2005 to 2006. [4]

These journalists sued New York City based on the belief that the police denied their press passes arbitrarily and that the police had no authority to deny their recognition as journalists. That is not the case. It turns out that the Police Department issues two forms of identification that distinguishes the reporters who cover “spot or breaking news on a regular basis such as robbery scenes, fires, homicides, train wrecks, bombings, plane crashes” from the reporters who do “not normally cover spot or breaking news.” [4] This categorization is not discriminatory and is necessary in situations where the presence of the mass media is harmful or slows down the police or fire department from reaching the scene. Although the plaintiffs already applied for press passes, there is no guarantee that they will receive them, since they did not send their request directly to the Board of Supervisors. [5] Also, according to section 6 of Los Angeles Free Press v. Los Angeles, there is no constitutional requirement that the police officers “show uniform treatment to all publications or news media in issuing Press Passes, the only requirement being that there be a reasonable basis for the classification imposed.” So within reason, the NYPD could limit the number of reporters who had access to the scene that day. The only problem was that the police kept the reasons for denying press passes vague and assumed the issuance of two different journalistic credentials was sufficient enough to convey the message that only certain reporters were welcomed across the police lines.

Also, the three reporters questioned the police officers’ authority to deny them their credibility as journalists. After all, the purpose of press passes is to help them express their identity as journalists. If even this freedom of expression is refused because the police commissioners withheld the press passes, that is certainly unconstitutional conduct. This impedes the journalists’ ability to report on the news and serve the public interest as well. However, the city code gave the police commissioners full discretion to limit the number of press passes to the plaintiff’s staff. [5] That means the police commission has to classify groups of news organizations that can and cannot receive press passes. By the gesture of journalists asking police commissioners for press passes, they are demonstrating that they acknowledge the police as the legitimate authority. Therefore, Wallis should not have to question whether or not the NYPD should be “in the business of deciding who is” a journalist. [2] The police are granted the authority to issue press passes, and they are merely doing their job. That area leaves little room for contention.

At the same time, the duty of the sheriff in facilitating assistance to and from people in accident scenes or riots deserves equal attention. Although not specified in the NYPD case, there are times when the police must necessarily limit the press’ access to certain locations. In the Los Angeles Free Press Inc. v. Los Angeles case, "the number of Press Passes issued by Respondents is now restricted, the purpose of such restriction being to protect the public safety, health and welfare and to contribute to the efficient performance of policing duties.” [5] There is reason to believe that the police officers are using their best discretion when denying access to certain scenes because of their role as authority figures under the government. In an emergency, no one would question the police officers in their line of duty. It would be more practical and urgent to get out of their way to ensure that they rescue and reach the maximum amount of people as quickly and safely as possible without endangering the lives of the public bystanders or victims. Thus, the fact that the police commissioners denied members of the media press passes does not necessarily step over the boundary of their freedom of the press when there are bigger issues at hand.

The police commissioners should at least provide an explanation as to why some reporters are denied press passes instead of sending away reporters thinking that they were denied their freedom of the press and short-changed in their ability to pose questions to the authority figures on the scene. None of the three received specific reasons why their requests for press passes were denied. They were not given due process either, so they were uncertain about the role of government in monitoring and limiting the scope of press coverage to certain news-gathering organizations and not others. Even though the police officers clearly distinguished the VIP reporters who carried working press cards from those who carried press identification cards, which was based on showing courtesy to those “employed by a legitimate news organization,” this is still a vague rule of regulating the flow of the press into certain scenes that are behind police lines.

This uncertainty in the realm of reporting prevents journalists from gathering information in an unfettered marketplace of ideas. The fact that they did not receive due process of the law causes the journalists to experience chilled speech because they are unable to discern whether they have a right to petition the government for questionable police actions. Police forces have the responsibility of providing legitimate reasons for denying members of the media access to certain scenes. The next time these reporters attempt to cover breaking news behind police lines they will automatically seek less access because of the unnecessary barrier originally created between the press and government because of a vague regulation. Thus, when the police do not give a legitimate reason for denying the press access to a certain patrolled location, they abate the press’ duty to be the eyes and ears of the public.



Sources:

[1] Press passes may help you get in
http://www.rcfp.org/places/presspassesmayhelpyougetin.html

[2] Journalists fire back at NYC with lawsuit over credentials
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=7134

[3] Lawsuit over police press passes
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/lawsuit-over-police-press-passes/

[4] N.Y.P.D. is sued over denial of press credentials
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/

[5] Los Angeles Free Press Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
http://www.cfac.org/handbook/cases/LAFreePress_v._LA.pdf