08D

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

Overview

California

Courts have the ability to place limitations on press access to juvenile defendants; for example, one court prohibited access unless one of the juvenile’s parents consented to an interview of the juvenile. See People v. Saechao, 27 Media L. Rep. 1831 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1999). 

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

Overview

Maryland

In Baltimore Sun Co. v. State, 340 Md. 437, 667 A.2d 166, 169 (1995), the Court of Appeals recognized that “while a court can place reasonable restrictions on the media’s use of information obtained in a confidential juvenile proceeding, it cannot limit the media’s publication of information which it legitimately collected from other sources.” Id. at 422-43, 667 A.2d at 169.  In that case, a juvenile court proceeding involving the abuse of an infant, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court could not restrict the publication of a photograph of the juvenile obtained from the local police department. Id. at 443-453, 667 A.2d at 169-74. The appellate court also held unconstitutional the lower court’s order requiring the press to print specific material, including the requirement that the media use specific terms in referring to the juvenile. Id. at 455-59, 667 A.2d 175-77.

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

Overview

Kansas

Under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 1001(e)(7), a trial judge must prohibit photographing of a juvenile, as well as audio recording, unless the juvenile is being prosecuted as an adult in a criminal proceeding as authorized by K.S.A. 38-2347.   However, even though the rule permits photographing of a juvenile who is tried as an adult, it allows a judge to issue a “directive to the contrary” Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 1001, Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Media_Coverage/Rule%201001.pdf.

D. Prohibitions on photographing or identifying juveniles

Overview

Minnesota

According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, any prior restraint on the freedom of the press must be “necessitated by a compelling state interest, and … narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schmidt, 360 N.W.2d 433, 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)); see also Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Lee, 353 N.W.2d at 215 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.