North Dakota prosecutors subpoena outlet’s unpublished work product

BEK Communications asked the North Dakota Supreme Court on Feb. 12, 2026, to overturn a lower court’s ruling ordering it to turn over footage from a BEK TV interview with the primary witness in a murder case.

Prosecutors in Minot, North Dakota, subpoenaed BEK in September 2025 seeking reporting materials tied to an online documentary series focusing on the state’s criminal case against Daniel Breijo on charges of murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and terrorizing. The series includes interviews with the witness, a surviving victim of Breijo’s alleged attack, identified in court documents only by their initials.

Portions of those interviews remained confidential and unpublished, at the witness’s request, according to a court filing by BEK CEO Derrick Bulawa. Prosecutors asked for BEK’s internal communications with the witness, and all unpublished footage and materials from those interviews.

In October, BEK filed a motion to strike down the subpoena, arguing that it violated both the First Amendment and North Dakota’s shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose information.

On Jan. 26, 2026, Ward County District Court Judge Daniel El-Dweek ordered BEK to give him all footage of interviews by any BEK reporters with the witness for his private review, so he could determine whether withholding those materials would lead to “a miscarriage of justice.”

On Jan. 30, BEK requested that the order be put on hold while the company asked the state’s Supreme Court for a supervisory writ — a review of a lower court’s order in which the higher court can “rectify errors and prevent injustice.”

In a Feb. 12 petition, BEK asked the high court to order the district court to vacate its order for the footage and quash the subpoena, arguing that the lower court had not applied correct legal precedent in its analysis.

“The court’s limited explanation in the order misapplies the journalist shield statute and case law interpreting the statute, and leads to an unreasoned decision that was not the product of rational mental process,” BEK wrote. “No disclosure of BEK’s material is justified by the facts in the record under an application of the correct law.”