(1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "Mass medium" means any publisher of a newspaper or periodical; wire service; radio or television station or network; news or feature syndicate; or cable television system.
(b) "News information" means any knowledge, observation, notes, documents, photographs, films, recordings, videotapes, audiotapes, and reports, and the contents and sources thereof, obtained by a newsperson while engaged as such, regardless of whether such items have been provided to or obtained by such newsperson in confidence.
(c) "Newsperson" means any member of the mass media and any employee or independent contractor of a member of the mass media who is engaged to gather, receive, observe, process, prepare, write, or edit news information for dissemination to the public through the mass media.
(d) "Press conference" means any meeting or event called for the purpose of issuing a public statement to members of the mass media, and to which members of the mass media are invited in advance.
(e) "Proceeding" means any civil or criminal investigation, discovery procedure, hearing, trial, or other process for obtaining information conducted by, before, or under the authority of any judicial body of the state of Colorado. Such term shall not include any investigation, hearing, or other process for obtaining information conducted by, before, or under the authority of the general assembly.
(f) "Source" means any person from whom or any means by or through which news information is received or procured by a newsperson, while engaged as such, regardless of whether such newsperson was requested to hold confidential the identity of such person or means.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, no newsperson shall, without such newsperson's express consent, be compelled to disclose, be examined concerning refusal to disclose, be subjected to any legal presumption of any kind, or be cited, held in contempt, punished, or subjected to any sanction in any judicial proceedings for refusal to disclose any news information received, observed, procured, processed, prepared, written, or edited by a newsperson, while acting in the capacity of a newsperson; except that the privilege of nondisclosure shall not apply to the following:
(a) News information received at a press conference;
(b) News information which has actually been published or broadcast through a medium of mass communication;
(c) News information based on a newsperson's personal observation of the commission of a crime if substantially similar news information cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means;
(d) News information based on a newsperson's personal observation of the commission of a class 1, 2, or 3 felony.
(3) Notwithstanding the privilege of nondisclosure granted in subsection (2) of this section, any party to a proceeding who is otherwise authorized by law to issue or obtain subpoenas may subpoena a newsperson in order to obtain news information by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence, in opposition to a newsperson's motion to quash such subpoena:
(a) That the news information is directly relevant to a substantial issue involved in the proceeding;
(b) That the news information cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means; and
(c) That a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the newsperson outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States constitution of such newsperson in not responding to a subpoena and of the general public in receiving news information.
(4) The privilege of nondisclosure established by subsection (2) of this section may be waived only by the voluntary testimony or disclosure of a newsperson that directly addresses the news information or identifies the source of such news information sought. A publication or broadcast of a news report through the mass media concerning the subject area of the news information sought, but which does not directly address the specific news information sought, shall not be deemed a waiver of the privilege of nondisclosure as to such specific news information.
(5) In any trial to a jury in an action in which a newsperson is a party as a result of such person's activities as a newsperson and in which the newsperson has invoked the privilege created by subsection (2) of this section, the jury shall be neither informed nor allowed to learn that such newsperson invoked such privilege or has thereby declined to disclose any news information.
(6) Nothing in this section shall preclude the issuance of a search warrant in compliance with the federal "Privacy Protection Act of 1980", 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000aa.
Source: L. 90: Entire section added, p. 1262, § 1, effective April 16.
Cross references: For governmental access to news information, see article 72.5 of title 24.
PART 2 APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETERS FOR PERSONS WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING Editor's note: This part 2 was numbered as article 3 of chapter 16, C.R.S. 1963. The substantive provisions of this part 2 were repealed and reenacted in 1987, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this part 2 prior to 1987, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. Former C.R.S. section numbers are shown in editors' notes following those sections that were relocated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1993–2019 · leading case:
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 42× “Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 25× “Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
Bustos v. United States, 257 F.R.D. 617 (D. Colo. 2009).
· cites it 6× “” C.R.S. § 13-90-119. In response, Plaintiff emphasizes that the primary issue of defamation in this matter is not whether Plaintiff is a member of a “violent and racist prison gang,” but whether he is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, as allegedly portrayed in Defendant AETN’s…”
Quigley v. Rosenthal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Colo. 1999).
· cites it 5× “) Defendants now reassert the argument that the ADL may be considered a journalistic organization for purposes of the privilege and that it need not produce the requested materials under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Colorado’s journalists’ privilege…”
People v. Henderson, 847 P.2d 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 11× “The motion was based upon the Colorado Privilege for Newspersons Statute, § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Defendant contended that the statute did not apply because the pilot was asked by the officers to conduct the flight.”
Holmes v. Winter, 3 N.E.3d 694 (NY 2013).
“issue involved in the proceeding,” (2) “the news information cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means,” and (3) “a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the newsperson outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States constitution of such…”
Miles v. Nat'l Enquirer, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Colo. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-90-119 (1997). Defendants are thus not subject to any legal presumption for exercising this right.”
Brokers' Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D. Colo. 2015).
· cites it 2× “This footage was not considered when the Court was resolving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, nor available to the Tenth Circuit in its review of the Court’s Order granting the Motion to Dismiss, as the full recordings were deemed to be statutorily protected by the Court under…”
People v. Morise, 859 P.2d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “However, relying upon the privilege for newspersons created by § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.), the staff writers and their employers moved to quash those subpoenas, and the court granted those motions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(1)(b) — 2 cases
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(1)(c) — 2 cases
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(2) — 2 cases
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(2)(a) — 2 cases
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
Bustos v. United States, 257 F.R.D. 617 (D. Colo. 2009).
“” C.R.S. § 13-90-119. In response, Plaintiff emphasizes that the primary issue of defamation in this matter is not whether Plaintiff is a member of a “violent and racist prison gang,” but whether he is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, as allegedly portrayed in Defendant AETN’s…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(2)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Henderson, 847 P.2d 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
“The motion was based upon the Colorado Privilege for Newspersons Statute, § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Defendant contended that the statute did not apply because the pilot was asked by the officers to conduct the flight.”
People v. Morise, 859 P.2d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
“However, relying upon the privilege for newspersons created by § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.), the staff writers and their employers moved to quash those subpoenas, and the court granted those motions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(3) — 5 cases
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
Bustos v. United States, 257 F.R.D. 617 (D. Colo. 2009).
“” C.R.S. § 13-90-119. In response, Plaintiff emphasizes that the primary issue of defamation in this matter is not whether Plaintiff is a member of a “violent and racist prison gang,” but whether he is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, as allegedly portrayed in Defendant AETN’s…”
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
Brokers' Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D. Colo. 2015).
“This footage was not considered when the Court was resolving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, nor available to the Tenth Circuit in its review of the Court’s Order granting the Motion to Dismiss, as the full recordings were deemed to be statutorily protected by the Court under…”
People v. Henderson, 847 P.2d 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
“The motion was based upon the Colorado Privilege for Newspersons Statute, § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Defendant contended that the statute did not apply because the pilot was asked by the officers to conduct the flight.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(3)(a) — 1 case
Quigley v. Rosenthal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Colo. 1999).
“) Defendants now reassert the argument that the ADL may be considered a journalistic organization for purposes of the privilege and that it need not produce the requested materials under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Colorado’s journalists’ privilege…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(3)(c) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(4) — 2 cases
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(8) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(8)(a) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(8)(b) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(8)(c) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(83)(c) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(i)(c) — 1 case
Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000).
“Hence, pursuant to section 13-90-119, a newsperson will not be compelled to reveal news information or be sanctioned for refusing to do so unless the court is satisfied, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, that the three factors listed in section 18-90-119(8) have…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(l)(b) — 2 cases
Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383 (Colo. 1994).
“Counsel for KUSA and Peelgrane moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the newsperson's privilege set forth in section 13-90-119, 6A C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”
People v. Henderson, 847 P.2d 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
“The motion was based upon the Colorado Privilege for Newspersons Statute, § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Defendant contended that the statute did not apply because the pilot was asked by the officers to conduct the flight.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(l)(f) — 1 case
People v. Henderson, 847 P.2d 239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
“The motion was based upon the Colorado Privilege for Newspersons Statute, § 13-90-119, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Defendant contended that the statute did not apply because the pilot was asked by the officers to conduct the flight.”
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.