§
Subdivision 1.Disclosure; application.
A person seeking disclosure may apply to the district court of the county where the person employed by or associated with a news media resides, has a principal place of business or where the proceeding in which the information sought is pending.
§
Subd. 2.Disclosure allowed; conditions.
The application shall be granted only if the court determines after hearing the parties that the person making application, by clear and convincing evidence, has met all three of the following conditions:
(1) that there is probable cause to believe that the specific information sought (i) is clearly relevant to a gross misdemeanor or felony, or (ii) is clearly relevant to a misdemeanor so long as the information would not tend to identify the source of the information or the means through which it was obtained,
(2) that the information cannot be obtained by alternative means or remedies less destructive of first amendment rights, and
(3) that there is a compelling and overriding interest requiring the disclosure of the information where the disclosure is necessary to prevent injustice.
§
Subd. 3.Determination; appeal.
The district court shall consider the nature of the proceedings, the merits of the claims and defenses, the adequacies of alternative remedies, the relevancy of the information sought, and the possibility of establishing by other means that which the source is expected or may tend to prove. The court shall make its appropriate order after making findings of fact. The order may be appealed directly to the court of appeals according to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order is stayed and nondisclosure shall remain in full force and effect during the pendency of the appeal. Where the court finds that the information sought has been published or broadcast, there shall be no automatic stay unless an appeal is filed within two days after the order is issued. Either party may request expedited consideration.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 8× “er’s petition on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that the writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for extreme eases where no ordinary legal remedy exists, and that the district court’s decision was correct because Turner had not overcome the…”
State v. Knutson, 523 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 10× “Minn.Stat. § 595.024 (1992). The Daily argues that section 595.”
Matter of People v. Juarez, 31 N.Y.3d 1186 (NY 2018).
· cites it 2× “330 [Alaska]; Minn Stat § 595.024 [3] [Minnesota]; [*13]NM Stat Ann § 38-6-7 [C] [New Mexico]).”
State v. Brenner, 488 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 10× “See Minn.Stat. § 595.024, subd. 3 (1990). We reverse and remand for in camera review.”
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Miller, 438 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
“§§ 16-4702, 16-4703(b); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5942; Ala. Code § 12-21-142 , or a privilege that applies unless non-disclosure “will cause a miscarriage of justice,” N.”
Arneson v. Nienaber, 742 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 24× “Appellants challenge the district court order and resulting judgment compelling them to divulge information regarding the investigation into the death of Jeffrey Skjervold, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that respondent had met the criteria for disclosure…”
State v. Knutson, 539 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The Daily also claims protection under Minn.Stat. § 595.024, subd. 2 (1994), providing that disclosure can be compelled only if the court has determined: (1) that there is probable cause to believe that the source has information clearly relevant to a specific violation of the…”
Bauer v. Gannett Co., Inc.(KARE 11), 557 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 595.024, subd. 2. This court and the Minnesota Supreme Court have held that the protections of the Act apply only to confidential sources and information leading to their identity.”
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.