The investigation, according to court documents, centers around an allegation that the Lancaster County coroner gave his computer password to one or more reporters for the Intelligencer Journal, allowing them access to a restricted law enforcement Web site.
The Intelligencer Journal is owned by Lancaster Newspapers Inc., the parent company of the Lancaster New Era and the Sunday News. Each newspaper has separate and independent staffs.
No charges have been brought against anyone, including the coroner, Dr. G. Gary Kirchner, or anyone from Lancaster Newspapers.
The matter, which is before a statewide investigative grand jury, temporarily came to a halt recently when newspaper attorneys asked the Supreme Court whether prosecutors could search four reporters’ computers.
The question was resolved on Wednesday when the Supreme Court handed down a brief, one-page order, saying the newspaper could not appeal the issue. The ruling, in effect, allows prosecutors to search the computers.
Two attorneys representing the newspaper expressed disappointment today at the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“It’s the principle that the government should even have access to such information,” said William A. DeStefano of Philadelphia.
“We feel there were significant First Amendment rights that were at issue,” he said, adding that those arguments were not considered by the Supreme Court.
Without considering that issue, the court ruled simply that the newspaper could not appeal the lower court judge’s decision.
Harold E. Miller Jr., president and chief executive officer of Lancaster Newspapers, said this morning that “Lancaster Newspapers is very disappointed our appeal was denied. We still believe this issue involves protections afforded newspapers under the Pennsylvania Shield Law and the federal Privacy Protection Act.”
Kevin Harley, spokesman for state Attorney General Tom Corbett, noted that although the documents regarding the Supreme Court are public, he cannot comment on anything that is before an investigative grand jury.
The alleged security breach came to prosecutors’ attention in August, when local officials discovered the restricted Web site had been accessed from a newspaper computer between 3 and 11 p.m., which are the Intell staff members’ designated working hours.
The matter was referred to the state Attorney General’s Office, which presented it to an investigative grand jury. Although grand jury matters are closed, documents filed before the Supreme Court are open to the public.
According to those documents, newspaper attorneys complained that the paper had cooperated with the investigation — offering the Attorney General’s investigators printed versions of certain items they requested, including e-mails.
Newspaper personnel also removed hard drives from four computers and placed them in a secured location, but Lancaster Newspaper attorneys objected to a search of those computers, fearing prosecutors might view other documents and notes unrelated to the grand jury investigation.
Prosecutors responded that they have special forensic equipment that would scan the computers only for material relevant to the Lancaster County-Wide Communications’ Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) Web site.
“The Founding Fathers did not have computers, but they did have a healthy mistrust of governmental attempts to intrude upon certain rights,’’ DeStefano wrote.
“Who is going to talk,’’ to newspaper reporters, DeStefano’s associate, Jayson Wolfgang, asked the court, “if newspaper computers can be seized and turned over to the government?’’
Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach, in the prosecution’s response, added that they believe the newspaper “has information related to the matter under investigation.’’
In addition, prosecutors wrote that they tried to protect “against the unnecessary disruption of the newspaper’s operation’’ by not seizing the computers with a search warrant.
Senior Judge Barry F. Feudale, who is presiding over the grand jury, ruled that he was satisfied with the prosecutor’s promise that a narrow “inquiry can be made without impacting the reporters’ privilege and First Amendment privacy concerns of Lancaster Newspapers.’’
Feudale added that he would personally review all the material before it is turned over to prosecuting attorneys.
Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, a Lancaster County resident, did not participate in the matter.
Talkback on LancasterOnline
Welcome to the new TalkBack on LancasterOnline. Please use the comment box below to share your opinion on this
article. If you would prefer to use the previous TalkBack forums instead, please use this link.
