Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2739 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.04 (2026)

Disclosure of new source

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
November 11, 1977
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 106 - 112th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

No person engaged in the work of, or connected with, or employed by any noncommercial educational or commercial radio broadcasting station, or any noncommercial educational or commercial television broadcasting station, or network of such stations, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, disseminating, publishing, or broadcasting news shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person in the course of his employment, in any legal proceeding, trial, or investigation before any court, grand jury, petit jury, or any officer thereof, before the presiding officer of any tribunal, or his agent, or before any commission, department, division, or bureau of this state, or before any county or municipal body, officer, or committee thereof.

Every noncommercial educational or commercial radio broadcasting station, and every noncommercial educational or commercial television broadcasting station shall maintain for a period of six months from the date of its broadcast thereof, a record of those statements of information the source of which was procured or obtained by persons employed by the station in gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, disseminating, publishing, or broadcasting news.

As used in this section:

(A) "Record" includes a tape, disc, script, or any other item or document that sets forth the content of the statements that are required by this section to be recorded.

(B) "Noncommercial educational television or radio broadcasting station" means a television or radio broadcast station that is licensed by the federal communications commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station, transmits only noncommercial programs for educational purposes, and is owned and operated by:

(1) A public agency or institution or a nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association;

(2) A municipal corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1977–2005 · leading case: Svoboda v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 805 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Svoboda v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 805 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 40× “Relying on R.C. 2739.04, appellant declined to give any particulars regarding her informant that could be used to reveal his or her identity.”
State v. Geis, 441 N.E.2d 803 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 22× “When, as in this case, a trial court has before it a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum on the grounds that said material is protected by R.C. 2739.04, the trial court must proceed with a three-part analysis.”
Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 2× “Civil Rights Law § 79 -h (McKinney 1976); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2739.04 , 2739.12 (1971); Pa.”
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 796 P.2d 811 (Cal. 1990). · cites it 2× “2 ; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2739.04 ; Tenn. Code Ann.”
The New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 382 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “2; Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2739.04, 2739.12; Okla.”
Sprague v. Walter, 516 A.2d 706 (Pa. 1986). “2 (1976); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2739.04-. 12 (Page 1981); Okla.”
State Ex Rel. Shelton v. Firemen & Policemen's Death Benefit Fund, 709 N.E.2d 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “, R.C. 2739.04 (television and radio reporter’s privilege) and R.”
CBS Inc. (KMOX-TV) v. Campbell, 645 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “Civil Rights Law § 79-h; Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 2739.04, 2739.12; Pa.”
In Re August 28, 2002 Grand Jury Subpoena, 786 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “In addition, although R.C. 2739.04 and 2739.12 prohibit a reporter from being required to reveal the source of his or her information, the confidentiality of WBNS’s source was not an issue, as Farst’s identity was known.”
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.