The state Supreme Court Friday temporarily suspended a judge's $1,000-a-day fine on Lancaster Newspapers Inc. for refusing to turn over two reporters' computers to the state attorney general.

The high court, acting on the newspaper's emergency petition, issued a two-sentence order halting the fine and requiring the newspaper to not move or alter the computers "in any fashion, pending further order of this Court."

An attorney for the newspaper viewed the Supreme Court's terse order as a "victory of sorts."

"The Supreme Court took the step of staying a court order while it bought some time to consider the merits of our argument more thoroughly," attorney William A. DeStefano of Philadelphia said.

A key issue is whether the attorney general violated press freedoms in compelling Lancaster Newspapers, publisher of the Intelligencer Journal, Lancaster New Era and Sunday News, to hand over computer hard drives that might contain information reporters obtained from confidential sources.

"We're confident that the state Supreme Court will give this issue the appropriate scrutiny it deserves," said Kevin Harley, spokesman for Attorney General Tom Corbett.

The justices did not indicate when they would issue a final order or say whether they would schedule oral arguments.

The dispute arises from a probe begun last fall by the attorney general into county Coroner Dr. G. Gary Kirchner's dealings with the press.

The attorney general engaged a statewide investigative grand jury to look into whether Kirchner gave Intelligencer Journal reporters his password to a part of the county's Web site restricted to law-enforcement and other authorized officials.

The grand jury has required witnesses to appear, but no charges have been filed.

Friday was the second time the state Supreme Court has ruled in Lancaster Newspapers' effort to stop investigators from getting their hands on its reporters' computers.

The first came in March after the newspaper asked the justices to dismiss a subpoena for four computers. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, and the newspaper turned over the four computers, which investigators have since examined.

The latest Supreme Court ruling regards a subpoena the grand jury issued in July for two additional computers.

The newspaper refused to produce the computers, leading the judge supervising the grand jury to hold Lancaster Newspapers in contempt and to impose fines.

In a related matter, the Supreme Court sided with the attorney general regarding his desire not to disclose to Lancaster Newspapers an administrative document that explains the reason for the grand jury investigation.

The grand jury's supervising judge ordered the document be given to Lancaster Newspapers' attorneys, but the Supreme Court Friday temporarily suspended that order.

In a brief, the newspaper argued that disclosure of such an administrative document "has been recognized by (the state Supreme Court) for decades." The newspaper said review of the document goes to its right to challenge the legitimacy of a grand jury investigation.

The attorney general responded with a brief but asked it not be made public. The Supreme Court Friday approved that request.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, a Lancaster County resident, did not participate in the decision to issue Friday's orders.