IN RE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO. 820 F.2d 1342 (1st Cir. 1986) CASE BRIEF

IN RE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

820 F.2d 1342 (1st Cir. 1986)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Newspaper (D) and its executive editor, challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which adjudged them in criminal contempt for violating a temporary restraining order barring publication of certain logs and information.

FACTS: The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted electronic surveillance of Raymond L. S. Patriarca, reputedly a prominent figure in organized crime. The FBI conducted this surveillance without a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The FBI later destroyed all tape recordings relating to this surveillance but retained the logs and memoranda compiled from the recordings. In 1976, D requested the logs and memoranda from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI refused this request on the ground that disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. D then brought suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island to compel disclosure. On appeal, we ruled that the FBI was within its discretion when it refused the D's request. After the death of Raymond L. S. Patriarca, the Journal renewed its FOIA request to the FBI for the logs and memoranda. The FBI assented to this request and furnished the materials not only to D, but also to WJAR Television Ten and other news media. On November 8, 1985, Raymond J. Patriarca ('Patriarca'), Raymond L. S. Patriarca's son, filed a summons and complaint against the FBI, WJAR, and D. The action was based on the FOIA, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ('Title III'), and the Fourth Amendment. The complaint alleged that the FBI had wrongfully released the logs and memoranda to the Journal and WJAR. At the same time, Patriarca filed the complaint, he filed a Motion for Temporary Injunctive or Injunctive Relief seeking an order 'enjoining the named defendants from disseminating or publishing [the] logs and [memoranda]. . . .' The district court held a conference concerning the request for a temporary restraining order. Counsel for D argued that any restraining order would constitute a prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment. Over the objections of counsel for D and the government, the court entered a temporary restraining order barring publication of the logs and memoranda by D and WJAR. The district court set a hearing for November 15, 1985, at which time it would decide whether to vacate the order. The district court later vacated the order and denied preliminary injunctive relief against D and WJAR. The day after the district court issued the order, and while that order was still in effect, D published an article on the deceased Patriarca that included information taken from the logs and memoranda. The son filed a motion to judge D in contempt. When he declined to prosecute the criminal contempt motion, the district court invoked Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(b) and appointed a special prosecutor. Following a hearing, the district court found Dl guilty of criminal contempt. The court imposed an 18-month jail term on Hauser, which was suspended, ordered Hauser to perform 200 hours of public service, and fined D $100,000. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner