(a)A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(b)Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c)As used in this section, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case:
People v. Cooper, 809 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1991).
People v. Cooper, 809 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1991).
· cites it 4× “(b); Evid. Code, § 1070.) [7] Defendant contends the court erred.”
O'GRADY v. Superior Court, 79 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1398 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “On February 14, 2005, petitioners Monish Bhatia, Jason O’Grady, and “Kasper Jade” moved for a protective order to prevent the discovery sought by Apple on the grounds that (1) their “sources and unpublished information” were “protected under the reporter’s shield embodied in…”
Rosato v. Superior Court, 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 12× “Goodwin "carelessly" left a copy of the transcript on his desk thus enabling a third party not subject to the order to transmit its contents to petitioners, forcing petitioners to answer questions concerning the episode would endanger the protected source.”
People v. Sanchez, 906 P.2d 1129 (Cal. 1995).
· cites it 4× “(b); Evid. Code, § 1070.) [2] After the prosecutor assured the court she intended to limit questioning of Trihey to published statements only, the court indicated that it would rule on a "question by question basis.”
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 796 P.2d 811 (Cal. 1990).
· cites it 10× “(b); Evid. Code, § 1070) provides a newspaper publisher with immunity from contempt for its refusal to comply with a civil subpoena for unpublished photographs of an automobile accident on a public highway.”
People v. Ramos, 101 P.3d 478 (Cal. 2004).
· cites it 2× “) Prior to the penalty trial, the prosecution subpoenaed Hutchinson as a witness. Hutchinson and the newspaper filed a motion to quash the subpoena, on the ground that the information the prosecution sought was protected by the California shield law (Cal.”
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
· cites it 2× “§ 43-917 (1964); Cal. Evid. Code § 1070 (Supp. 1972); Ind.”
People v. Charles, 349 P.3d 990 (Cal. 2015).
· cites it 2× “(b); Evid. Code, § 1070) limited his ability to effectively challenge the testimony of Tony Saavedra, the Orange County Register reporter, which was the basis of the court’s admission of the letter into evidence.”
People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433 (Cal. 2003).
“” On Hallissy’s motion asserting the newsperson’s shield law (Evid. Code, § 1070), the magistrate quashed the subpoena, ruling that Hallissy could provide no relevant, admissible evidence for purposes of the *271 preliminary hearing, and that defendant was not entitled to use…”
People v. Jones, 70 P.3d 359 (Cal. 2003).
“Vargo invoked the protection of the “reporter’s shield law” (Evid. Code, § 1070) and refused to testify.”
Rancho Publications v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “I, § 1) and the “absolute immunity” in California’s media shield law (Evid. Code, § 1070; Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1070(a) — 1 case
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.