Can a student reporter be forced to reveal the identity of an anonymous source when the police are involved?

State shield laws (a.k.a. “reporter’s privilege”) allow journalists to keep confidential information secret from outside parties in a criminal investigation or a civil lawsuit. 

Not all states recognize this privilege, and how it applies can vary state by state, so it’s important to figure out what your state law says. For example, in Michigan the law applies to anyone who regularly gathers and distributes news to the public, even unpaid students. But in contrast, in Florida, the shield law only applies to professional journalists who make their living gathering news. 

And, as if things weren’t convoluted enough, in some states the law covers all kinds of information, including unpublished interview notes. While in others, it might only shield published information. 

Finally, the law might be limited to certain situations, like in Michigan where police can only get past the shield if they’re investigating a crime that carries a possible life sentence. 

Long story short: it’s important to figure out (1) if your own state has a shield law and (2) what the limits of it are. 

What Does a Shield Law do? 

In almost every state, the law only protects journalists against criminal investigations or civil lawsuits. Usually, this means the police or a lawyer must get a special court order (called a subpoena) to try to make the journalist reveal their information. Without the shield law, journalists who ignore these orders could be sent to jail. 

Of course, like virtually every part of the law, there are exceptions to this rule. The shield law is essentially “defeated” when the information is needed to stop an urgent threat to the safety or welfare of another person. But remember, in general, asking a journalist to reveal their private source should be a last resort. Most state laws make the person seeking the information prove that they tried to get the information somewhere else first but could not get it from any other source except the journalist.

Alright, but how does that apply to our situation? 

Let’s say, for example, that the shield law does apply in this case. That would mean that the police can’t force you to reveal the identity of the student because you’re protected under reporter’s privilege. 

Of course, the police will probably argue that they need to know the information to stop an urgent threat to the safety of students who are reportedly using illegal drugs, but there is nothing in the article that is time-sensitive enough to really go after the journalist. Besides, the police have a ton of other ways they can get the information without going through the journalist: they could interview students at the school, have a drug detecting dog sniff lockers, or go through surveillance footage. 

Could I still get in trouble with the school?  

Unfortunately, because (1) no one knows how reporter’s privilege applies against school administrators and (2) this issue is about student drug use, the school probably has a lot more leeway about what they can do. 

In the court case Morse v. Frederick, a student got in trouble for holding up a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sponsored event, and the Supreme Court decided that schools have broader authority to control student speech when that speech involves things like promoting illegal drug use (. . . so, no more “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”). Although the article in our situation was a neutral report on drug use and was not necessarily encouraging drug use, the fact that it was about a student admitting to selling drugs at school probably puts it firmly within the school’s wheelhouse of authority. 

A student reporter could absolutely raise all of the reporter’s privilege arguments, but until a court decides that the law applies, the school might be able to suspend the journalist or threaten other punishment for not revealing the source. 

Even when you run the risk of getting in trouble, as a journalist you should always think carefully before revealing a source, especially if you made a promise of confidentiality. Breaking a promise of secrecy might break both ethical and legal obligations. And though it may seem insignificant in the scheme of a high school paper, just know that word travels, and that decision may come back to haunt you. 

Why is it so important for journalists to keep sources confidential?

Ever heard of ethics? Well, there’s also this thing called journalistic integrity. If you promised to keep a source’s identity secret, you have an ethical obligation as a journalist to uphold that secret, even at your own risk. Bottom line: don’t make that promise lightly. 

Keeping sources confidential is an essential part of journalism. Journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy. As a representative of the journalistic community, you should strive to report stories honestly and accurately. Confidentiality allows you to build trust with your sources. It allows you to access inside information on things that are taboo, sensitive, or even illegal. You wouldn’t have that kind of access without confidentiality. And not to get dramatic, but it does come at a price.  

In our situation, the journalist clearly has the trust of the source. If the source knew that the journalist was just going to rat them out to the authorities, they would have never given the interview, and the story would never have been told. We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again: if a journalist gets a reputation of not being trustworthy, that could affect their whole career.  

Promising to keep a source confidential isn’t like a contract, is it? 

When you hear the word “contract,” you probably think of a piece of paper with a bunch of legalese mumbo-jumbo that two people sign. But even if you only made a verbal promise to someone, that can be enforceable by law! Surprise! 

So if you gave someone your word that you would keep their identity confidential, you might have created something called an implied contract. That means if you break your promise, they could have grounds to sue you! So, as a rule of thumb, just keep your promises. 

Are teachers and advisers protected by shield laws? 

Unfortunately, teachers and advisers probably are not protected by reporter shield laws because they are not the ones doing the reporting. Teachers and advisers might be required to report things as part of their job, either by contract or under mandatory reporting laws. For example, many teachers are mandatory reporters, which means they’re required by law to report sexual assault or child abuse if they know about it, so they would NOT be able to keep sources confidential.

Are we done yet? Almost!

After all that, here’s what we got: In most states, student journalists CAN be protected by reporter’s privilege laws (well done, you made it this far!). 

But (you should know by now, there’s always a “but”), while these shield laws can protect you from court orders or police investigations, there’s no guarantee that they’ll protect you from school administrators. Until a court makes a decision on this issue, student journalists might have to take on the risks associated with keeping their sources confidential in order to write a good story. But the benefits of getting to write real stories weigh heavily against the risk, so student journalists should try to argue for their rights to keep sources confidential.