first_published_at,last_published_at,title,slug,latest_revision_created_at,charges,legal_orders,updates,categories,links,equipment_seized,equipment_broken,targeted_journalists,authors,date,exact_date_unknown,city,state,latitude,longitude,body,introduction,teaser,teaser_image,primary_video,image_caption,arrest_status,arresting_authority,release_date,detention_date,unnecessary_use_of_force,case_number,case_statuses,case_type,status_of_seized_equipment,is_search_warrant_obtained,actor,border_point,target_us_citizenship_status,denial_of_entry,stopped_previously,did_authorities_ask_for_device_access,did_authorities_ask_about_work,assailant,was_journalist_targeted,charged_under_espionage_act,subpoena_type,subpoena_statuses,name_of_business,third_party_business,legal_order_target,legal_order_type,legal_order_venue,status_of_prior_restraint,mistakenly_released_materials,type_of_denial,targeted_institutions,tags,target_nationality,workers_whose_communications_were_obtained,politicians_or_public_figures_involved 2019-05-02 17:23:23.012349+00:00,2023-12-21 16:57:47.414895+00:00,Colorado newspaper denied access to cover horse roundup,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/colorado-newspaper-denied-access-cover-horse-roundup/,2023-12-21 16:57:47.337121+00:00,,,,Denial of Access,,,,,,2019-04-24,False,None,Colorado (CO),None,None,"
Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado denied the press access to cover a horse roundup and removal, a process that in the past has been open to the media.
Colorado-based newspaper The Cortez Journal sought access to cover the process, but Park Superintendent Cliff Spencer sent an email to The Journal on April 24 that banned media coverage of the roundup. Spencer stated that representatives of the horse roundup did not want any distractions present that “would negatively affect the behavior of the horses.”
According to The Journal, Tim McGaffic, a horse wrangler who will be part of the roundup, said the paper’s proposal to have a reporter and photographer document and observe the process “seems more or less fine.”
Despite this, Spencer’s email forbade public or media access altogether, on the grounds that the groups involved with the roundup were “adamant” that only those directly involved should be present.
Attorney Steve Zansberg represented The Journal in an April 26 letter to Spencer seeking access, emphasizing that the public access to government activities protected under the First Amendment includes operations on federal land — like horse roundups.
“Accommodating a single reporter and pool photographer for a limited period of time at a considerable distance from the wrangler-horse interactions is a constitutionally appropriate way to protect the public’s First Amendment right to access a National Park and to engage in protected newsgathering activities there,” the letter reads. “It is certainly a far ‘less restrictive means’ than a blanket ban on coverage of this federal operation.”
Zansberg also noted that other government agencies have allowed the press to cover roundups of horses on federal property.
The Journal reporter Jim Mimiaga told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker on May 1 that the roundup has been approved, but has not yet taken place. Mimiaga said he was not aware of other news outlets that sought to cover the roundup.
Zansberg said that no substantive response from Spencer had been received as of May 1, and if the request continued to be denied, he would confer with the paper about next steps.
The National Park Service did not immediately reply to request for comment.
Wild horses run in Utah as they are gathered by the Bureau of Land Management in 2010. Unlike this roundup and others, Mesa Verde National Park has denied access to press seeking to cover an upcoming Colorado roundup.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,None,None,None,None,False,['GOVERNMENT_EVENTS'],The Cortez Journal,,,,Federal government: Agency 2019-05-07 19:04:43.411411+00:00,2024-01-12 14:47:23.666106+00:00,Baltimore court denies reporters access to courtroom audio recordings,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/baltimore-court-denies-reporters-access-courtroom-audio-recordings/,2024-01-12 14:47:23.569671+00:00,,,,Denial of Access,,,,"Justine Barron (Independent), Paul McGrew (WBFF)",,2019-04-24,False,Baltimore,Maryland (MD),39.29038,-76.61219,"The Baltimore City Circuit Court released an order dated April 24, 2019 that denies reporters the ability to obtain courtroom audio recordings. Independent journalist Justine Barron sued the judge that signed the order and Baltimore’s chief court reporter in response on May 2, alleging that it violates state law protections of public courtroom access.
Barron has covered numerous stories involving the city’s police department. She sought access to court audio recordings on April 17 as part of a case she is investigating.
Barron told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the circuit court was getting ready to fulfill her request, and told her she needed a check or money order. On April 23, Court Technologist Christopher Metcalf sent an email to Barron that she could pick up the record the next day.
The next day, Barron was abruptly informed that the court would restrict “access of court audio to parties from now on.” Now, she said, she’ll have to return the money order she obtained to the post office and hope it will be refunded.
Barron noted that in Maryland, only parties to the case can obtain courtroom video, but anyone can obtain audio or transcripts.
“I kept being told that I’d have to view it in the office,” she said. “But I was wondering if he [Metcalf] was confused, because I wasn’t looking to view anything. And then it was clarified that they aren’t letting anyone get audio recordings, but didn’t say anything about an order at first.”
Metcalf’s supervisor, Trish Trikeriotis, wrote to Barron on April 25 that the court had ordered that only parties or counsel representing a party were permitted to receive copies of recordings, although Barron could review the proceedings on site.
On April 29, Barron was sent a copy of a one-sentence order — dated April 24, the day she had originally been told she would be able to pick up the record — signed by Judge W. Michel Pierson:
“Pursuant to the terms of Maryland Rule 16-504(h)(1)(C), it is, this day of April 24, 2019, ORDERED, that no copies of audio recordings maintained by the Office of the Court Reporter shall be made available to persons other than parties to the relevant proceeding or counsel to the relevant proceeding.”
Although courts in Maryland have historically granted the public access to audio recordings, broadcasting these recordings is prohibited. Several podcast producers have done so anyway, and a local journalist that Barron has worked with in the past has challenged the legality of prohibiting broadcasting the recordings.
A litigator with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center told The Intercept that denial of access to these audio recordings was “trying to replace one unlawful policy with another.”
Barron said that although the order initially appeared to target her specifically, it has affected other Baltimore reporters.
“After I was denied, at least one other person was able to get his CD,” she said. “The next day, someone was able to get one. So it seemed to be about me at first, but now, they’re punishing everyone.”
Paul McGrew, a Fox45 investigative reporter in Baltimore, wrote on social media that he was also denied access to courtroom audio recordings under the new order.
We requested court audio from Balt. City Circuit Court and have been told Administrative Judge W. Michel Pierson is no longer allowing media to acquire court audio per the Recorders’ Office at Circuit Court.
— Paul McGrew (@McGrewFox45) April 29, 2019
Barron’s lawsuit alleges that Judge Pierson’s order violates Maryland state law, which makes audio recordings of all trial court proceedings open to the public.
“...[A] local administrative order cannot override a State Rule,” it states. “Moreover, the ‘order’ that the Court Reporter’s office cited remains shrouded in mystery: the Court has not identified its reasons or authority for issuing the ‘order,’ nor has it posted the order publicly. These events paint a disturbing picture—that of local court officials seeking to stymie the State’s goal of shining a light on the judiciary and, worse yet, seeking to do so in the dark.”
Terri Charles, Assistant Public Information Officer for the Government Relations and Public Affairs Division of the Maryland Judiciary, provided the Tracker with a statement:
“The Judiciary does not comment on pending litigation. The media and the public can still listen to the court proceedings at the courthouse. The order states that copies are no longer available.”
Barron told the Tracker that courtroom recordings are critical in shedding important context on a case so that the press and lawyers can better understand what happened — which a transcript of the audio could not provide.
“Transcripts are not always accurate,” she said. “They are often full of typos. And a transcript is a document that the court has decided we can see — so we have to trust that they haven’t made a decision to edit it in some way. And the nuance of what happens in courtrooms is very important — like if someone stalls before answering or laughs, these details are important.”
Journalist Justine Barron has sued in Baltimore for access to audio recordings of court proceedings.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,None,None,None,None,False,"['CHANGE_IN_POLICY', 'OTHER']",,,,,Judiciary: Circuit Court