Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2237 (2026)

Reporter and informant

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station, shall not be compelled to testify or disclose in a legal proceeding or trial or any proceeding whatever, or before any jury, inquisitorial body or commission, or before a committee of the legislature, or elsewhere, the source of information procured or obtained by him for publication in a newspaper or for broadcasting over a radio or television station with which he was associated or by which he is employed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1972–2019 · leading case: Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 178 P.3d 1176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 178 P.3d 1176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 32× “Assuming arguendo that the A.R.S. § 12-2237 privilege can be waived, neither KNXV's litigation position nor its limited disclosures support a waiver finding in this case.”
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 12-2237 (2003). We agree with Moody that the reporter's privilege is not implicated in this case because Teibel's article did not involve a confidential source.”
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). · cites it 2× “1971); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1971-1972); Ark.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “Specifically, and as relevant to our disposition of this special action, PNI argues that Moran has not exhausted all available sources for the information and that the information is protected by Arizona’s Media Shield Law, A.R.S. § 12-2237, and the First Amendment to the United…”
Glenn R. Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205 (Tenn. 2019). “); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2237 (West, Westlaw through 1st Special and 2nd Reg.”
Matera v. Superior Court, 825 P.2d 971 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “§ 12-2237, which reads as follows: A person engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station, shall not be compelled to testify or disclose in a legal proceeding or trial or any proceeding…”
In the Matter of Roche, 411 N.E.2d 466 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “150 (1973); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1979); Ark.”
Bartlett v. Superior Ct. in & for Pima Cty., 722 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “The affidavit further alleged that the information was irrelevant, overly broad and immaterial, and that it was privileged under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, article II, section 6, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 12-2237. When Bartlett failed…”
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Miller, 438 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2237 . Arkansas’s legislature has declared the privilege applicable to “any editor, reporter, or other writer for any newspaper, periodical, or radio station, or publisher of any newspaper or periodical, or manager or owner of any radio station .”
Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 2× “220 (1973); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1976); Ark.”
United States v. Jeffrey Sterling, 724 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 2013). “300 ; Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-2237; Ark.Code Ann.”
Coughlin, James & Coughlin, Patricia, His Wife v. Westinghouse Broad. & Cable Inc., 780 F.2d 340 (3d Cir. 1986). “Ann. § 421.100 (Baldwin 1979); La. Rev.Stat.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.