News BLOG

August 2008
S M T W T F S
         
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
           

Categories

More WHAS11 Blogs


Justice for Ivan: The Search Warrant - UPDATED

11:18 PM Wed, Jul 11, 2007 |

A behind the scenes look at how a newsroom decided to report a mistakenly released sealed court document.

For obvious reasons, police need secrecy when requesting search warrants. Eventually, however, these warrants need to be part of the public record for transparency and scrutiny.

WHAS11 had been checking with the Circuit Court Clerk's office every day for any court records related to the search and murder of Cesar "Ivan" Aguilar-Cano, whose body was discovered in a trash bag on Saturday, July 7, 2007. On Wednesday, July 11, that office released to us not only a search warrant, but the "affidavit for search warrant," which is the brief police submit to a judge so the judge will approve a warrant.

This is rarely, if ever, a public document. And this one laid out the evidence which has led police to search a neighboring sex offender's apartment.

I was covering the nuts and bolts of the investigation for the 5pm and 6pm newscasts and was talking on the phone with LMPD Public Information Officer Phil Russell about 10:30am when I was handed a note by a colleague that we had that search warrant. Needless to say, Russell was surprised when I passed that information along. I told him I needed to read it first, but would be seeking police comment later.

Later, Russell called me back with the bombshell that set the course for the rest of the day: the search warrant is a sealed court document and Metro Police would be seeking a court order to prevent us from reporting it.

Time to get the bosses involved. I advised management of the impending phone call and began to consider whether our reporting could in any way jeopardize the investigation.

That was the crux of our editorial decision: could authorities explain HOW our reporting would hinder the investigation. It's not enough that they PREFER we not release something. Heck, there is someone in every news story that would prefer we not run it.

We exercised caution and held off on reporting any details of the document at the start of the noon news while a lawyer with the Commonwealth's Attorney pleaded with us not to air anything, The problem is, that lawyer could not give us any specific examples of how those details would hurt the investigation. So, WHAS11 broadcast details within the document at 12:30.

In the mean time, I was preparing my stories for 5pm, 5:30pm and 6pm, and was calling police about every half-hour to include their characterizations of the warrant and the investigation.

Keep in mind, WHAS11 had never heard HOW the release of this document would hurt the investigation. But, we were obviously always open to hearing what police had to say.

At about 2:30pm, the police spokesman told me that the relevant police staff were meeting to discuss their position and that they would let me know the police request for discretion by 3:30pm. I explained that I needed to know ASAP because our stories go through their own editorial and editing process that is not instantaneous.

Finally, I was asked to meet with police at 4:10pm at LMPD headquarters. They were staggering meetings with members of the media which had the documents. But, when we arrived, it ended up that all local TV stations met with police at the same time. That's when we conducted the interview with Major Dave Wood, about 4:30pm.

I pressed him to make his case for which parts of the document would hurt the investigation. And, with about twenty minutes to air, police finally spelled that out. I had asked WHAS11 News Director Aaron Ramey to accompany me to that meeting, so on the short drive back to the station, we worked to redact the information that police had convinced us would jeopardize their investigation if released.

I cannot speak for any other media (but believe me I have strong opinions about everyone's editorial decisions that day), yet I am proud of the actions we did and did not take that day to be both journalistically sound and responsible to the community.

Postlude (7/12): Because I shared the process of how the WHAS11 decision was made, I thought it appropriate in this instance to also share how police responded to our story. After each of my reports on the search warrant affidavit, Det. Russell called the station to say "thank you" to WHAS11 for "taking the high road."

I later discovered that somehow the Courier Journal had obtained a copy of the search warrant apparantly AFTER the clerk's office had been informed of the mistaken earlier release. The CJ chose to publish several details that police considered harmful to their investigation. I can understand how someone could mistakenly release a sealed court document. What I cannot understand is why anyone in a position of authority would knowingly release a sealed court document.

I well imagine that homicide detectives are wondering the same thing.



7 Comments

p.j.brown said:

whas has shown mr.news profile and taken away his rights to a job and place to live along with a right of proof of innocense or guilt.
this man will now have a harder time if he is found not to have done this killing.
i am sad this child is gone, but if parents would watch their kids ,a pedophile would have less change in hurting the little ones .
a sex offender is not always a pedophile. we need to stop prosecutors from plea bargins and find out the truth in the charge against the person.so many guy are charged with sex offendes by angey ex. wifes or girlfriend to get back at a guy. if a man has hurt a child yes find him guily ,if more then one then more time.

p.j.

Diane said:

I feel like your story made this man look guilty even if he isn't. The media has played judge, jury and executioner. He is probably not safe to show his face in public anymore because people have formed a view of him based on the media.

Joe Arnold said:

Jeff -

Thanks for your comment.

As a point of fact, LMPD eventually did explain to me and other members of the media which details of the search warrant affidavit were most sensitive to them. As I pointed out in my blog, based upon that conversation, I edited my story ten minutes before it hit the air.

And, police thanked me for exercising discretion, based upon their explanation.

Joe

Jeff B said:

The reason the police did not tell you what would hinder the investigation is because the media can not be trusted & will do anything to boost ratings just as your station did.
Even if it doese hurt an investigation of finding a little boys killer.
I agree that You should be ashamed of yourselves & that was irresponsible journalism!

Joe Arnold said:

I have added a postlude to my original blog to reflect what the police department thought of my reporting that day. I'll be happy to respond to any questions here.

doug dukes said:

I will give you that police could not give a clear reason as to how releasing the information would hinder the investigation. So, why did the Courier Journal and other news stations choose not to release Mr. New's name? Because the man is simply a "person of interest" at this point in a "wide open investigation," as stated by David Wood. This man has not been CHARGED with a crime and should not be paraded before the public until such time!
The difference between a person of interest and someone charged with a crime is the person charged has an opportunity to prove his innocense. This man will not.
I will probably get my news in the future from a station with a higher ethical standard. Your station was not being "responsible to the community" with your reporting. Quite the contrary.

Jennifer said:

I can NOT believe you released any part of that affidavit/search warrant last night on the TV. I know not all was released but the police asked the media NOT release any information and when the police couldn't tell you specifically why, you took it upon yourselves to do it anyway without any regard to the respect of the police. Just so you could do a new story and be first to air it. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
That is irresponsible journalism!

I sincerely hope this hasn't hurt the investigation into the killing of that little boy. It will be on your conscious, if indeed you have one.


A former viewer


Leave a comment





Type the characters you see in the picture above.