A coalition of media and free-speech advocates is calling on the San Joaquin County sheriff to assure the public he will not investigate or prosecute journalists for doing their jobs. 

After arresting a former county court clerk over the release of a sealed search warrant in another case, the Sheriff’s Office said reporters who obtained a copy of that warrant are subject to investigation as part of a possible conspiracy. 

In response, in an open letter to the sheriff Wednesday, the media coalition described the possibility of investigating or prosecuting journalists for Constitutionally protected reporting as “chilling.”  

The legal saga began with deputies arresting a Stockton school board member, then arresting the court clerk, whom they accused of intentionally releasing a sealed search warrant in the school board case. 

Prosecution of the former clerk is a simple misdemeanor, but has already pitted the sheriff’s office against the court system. Now the case, and the sheriff’s vow to expand the investigation, has triggered fundamental questions about the First Amendment rights of the free press to cover the legal proceedings and the justice system. 

Last month, sheriff’s deputies arrested Pamela Edwards, a longtime legal process clerk for the SJ County Superior Court, on a misdemeanor charge of violating a court order in 2023 for allegedly releasing the sealed document. 

County Sheriff Patrick Withrow said outside the Stockton courthouse Dec. 4 following Edwards’ first arraignment hearing that the journalists who received and wrote about the sealed warrant were also under investigation. He said the Sheriff’s Office “is investigating anyone who may have conspired to release the (warrant) on this case, wherever that leads — journalists, citizens, whatever.” 

Pressed to identify which reporters he meant, Withrow would only say the two reporters who had written about the search warrant. 

“There’s no such thing as a conspiracy if you go to the courthouse and, say, make an ordinary request for ordinary court records,” David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit that advocates for press freedom and open government, told Stocktonia Wednesday.

He also said that it doesn’t matter whether the court accidentally released confidential records or whether they were released on purpose. 

Journalists “didn’t break in and hack it. They just asked, ‘Hey, can you give me a copy of this document?’ And if the court staff made a mistake … that’s between them and their employer,” Loy said. “But you, as a reporter, have the absolute First Amendment right to report on that document and that information, as long as it’s a matter of public concern, which this clearly is.”

“If the government can’t keep its own secrets, it can’t punish the press for publishing information that it receives,” he said.

The First Amendment Coalition is one of three free-speech and media advocacy organizations that signed the letter to Sheriff Withrow. 

NorCal Society of Professional Journalists, the local chapter of the nation’s longest-standing organization representing journalists, and the Pacific Media Workers Guild, which represents more than a 1,000 journalists and other media workers, union staff and freelancers in California, also signed the letter.

The press rights advocates told Withrow they had “strong concern” over his comments indicating “that journalists who lawfully obtained documents from the (court) could be exposed to criminal investigation or prosecution for having ‘conspired to break the law.’” 

State and federal laws protect journalists in such cases so that they cannot be kept from publishing information that the public has the right to know, the letter says.

“Any statement or implication by an elected official or law enforcement officer that routine journalism could be a crime exerts a powerful chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment,” the advocates say in the letter. “We urge you to clarify your remarks and confirm that the press is not a target or subject of any investigation in this matter.”

Spokesperson Heather Brent told Stocktonia in a written statement after receiving the coalition’s letter that the sheriff has not said that any journalists are currently under investigation.

“He did, however, indicate that journalists may be potential subjects in this case,” Brent said. “The manner in which the sealed warrant was illegally released indicates those individual(s) involved could be witness(es) or identified as suspects in a criminal conspiracy … which remains to be determined.”

The advocates also sent the letter to the SJ County Board of Supervisors and county District Attorney Ron Freitas.

“Please direct any inquiries regarding his comments to him or his team,” DA spokesperson Erin Haight said in an email to Stocktonia Wednesday when asked about the coalition’s letter to Withrow.  “Neither the District Attorney’s Office nor I can interpret or speak on behalf of the Sheriff.”

Freitas would ultimately be in charge of trying any possible criminal case brought as a result of the Sheriff’s Office’s investigation. 

The county’s Board of Supervisors did not immediately reply to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.

A case with many twists and turns

In November 2023, sheriff’s deputies searched Stockton Unified School District’s headquarters and the home of district Board of Trustees member AngelAnn Flores, who was board president at the time. Deputies’ investigation ultimately led to felony charges in May of misappropriation of funds, grand theft and false claims for Flores.

Flores’ lawyers claim the charges amount to political retaliation for the board member helping with inquiries by state and federal investigators into alleged fraud at Stockton Unified.

Shortly after the search of Flores’ home, the Stockton Record reported that it obtained a copy of the search warrant — the court document in which investigators justified the need to search Flores’ home — from court staff. 

Days after the Record’s article about the search warrant was published, the outlet reported a court spokesperson said the document had been released by accident. It’s unclear if the court still holds that view.

Months later, deputies questioned a then-Stockton Record reporter about the Flores warrant at her home in August.

Then in November — after Flores had already been charged and was awaiting trial — the Sheriff’s Office arrested Edwards. In a Facebook post about the arrest, the Sheriff’s Office said deputies believed the clerk knew the warrant was sealed and had released it anyway.

Edwards was set to be arraigned last Wednesday. However, a lawyer for the Superior Court entered the fray less than 24 hours before the hearing with an unusual filing called an ex parte motion — the court is not a party to the case. In that emergency motion, the court asked that the arrest warrant be sealed. 

The filing alleges the arrest warrant for Edwards contains “highly confidential and sensitive information” belonging to the Superior Court, described as employment records and security footage. The court also claims it did not provide the records or surveillance footage to the Sheriff’s Office and doesn’t know how they came to be in possession of authorities.

It’s unclear the extent of employment records and surveillance footage deputies obtained or how they obtained them.

SJ County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Heather Brent acknowledged that deputies had obtained surveillance footage and employment records, and declined to say how. She told Stocktonia Friday evening that the department had obtained the material from “other sources” she would not identify. 

“On behalf of the Sheriff’s Office, I can assure you that it was received ethically and legally,” Brent said.

The presiding judge, Erin Guy Castillo, agreed to temporarily seal the arrest warrant for Edwards, until the next arraignment hearing Jan. 15. The last-minute action angered the county sheriff, who blasted the court. 

In his comments on the courthouse steps following Edwards’ hearing, Withrow accused the Superior Court of not cooperating with his department’s investigation into Edwards and keeping information from the public. He also indicated the Record reporters who received and wrote stories on the sealed Flores search warrant are under investigation, describing them as parties to the case. 

Court records are generally considered public documents, Loy told Stocktonia Wednesday. 

“In California, once an arrest or search warrant has been served or executed, it’s a court record like any other, and it should be open to the public,” Loy said, adding that there are limited circumstances where a warrant might be sealed.

After Edwards’ arrest, Stocktonia made multiple requests to the court to review a copy of her arrest warrant. However, court officials repeatedly said the warrant was under review by the court’s records room supervisor. Court staff did not elaborate on why the warrant needed to be reviewed before its release or provide a timeline for when the review would be completed. 

The Superior Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon regarding why the warrant had not been made public in the weeks after the clerk was arrested leading up to her arraignment hearing on Dec. 4, where the court’s attorney requested the document be sealed. The court even specifically cited media attention given to Edwards’ cases. 

The Sheriff’s Office has previously said that warrants such as the one used to arrest Edwards, known as a Ramey warrant, or probable cause warrant, are usually considered a public document. A legal expert also told Stocktonia it’s unusual for such a warrant to be sealed. 

A warrant is typically only sealed on behalf of the investigating agency, Brent told Stocktonia last week, thus the department doesn’t understand why the court would want it sealed. 

It’s unclear how often courts intervene in cases in their own jurisdiction. The Judicial Council of California — the court system’s rule-making arm — has no data on the matter, a spokesman said. The council cannot comment on the San Joaquin County court’s role in Edwards’ case, he added.

When asked if the Sheriff’s Office is now finding itself in a situation similar to the Edwards case in using documents the court claims should have remained confidential, Brent said that comparison was “false.” 

“Not at all,” she said.

Legal protections for journalists

Among other state and federal legal protections, Loy said the First Amendment guarantees that journalists, or any other members of the public, can disseminate any information they lawfully receive. 

The Stockton Record reported that it obtained a copy of the search warrant from court staff after requesting it. 

Even if the Superior Court mistakenly released the sealed search warrant in the Flores case, Loy said, the reporters are under no legal obligation to keep information in the warrant confidential. This also includes if someone released the warrant knowing it was sealed.

“A long line of Supreme Court precedent confirms that the First Amendment guarantees the right to publish information of public concern that is acquired through a lawful request, even if the disclosure of that information was mistaken or unlawful,” advocates say in their letter to the sheriff.

Loy pointed to whistleblower cases such as Daniel Ellisberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in the 1970s, a move credited with helping to end the Vietnam War, or Edward Snowden, who leaked thousands of classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs to The Washington Post showing the U.S. government was spying on its own citizens. Washington Post reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting on Snowden.

“Whether it’s the Pentagon Papers or the WikiLeaks Cables, or you name it, the press has the First Amendment right to report on it, even if that person broke the law by giving it,” Loy said.

State and federal laws generally protect journalists and the press from search and seizure for materials gathered by those whose purpose is to disseminate information to the public, advocates say. Any attempt to prevent the press from publishing material in the Flores search warrant would also be deemed an act of “unconstitutional prior restraint.”

Loy also noted that California in particular has some of the nation’s most aggressive laws known as Shield Laws, which broadly protect publishers, editors and reporters against subpoenas from law enforcement in having to give up their sources and unpublished information.

“We have this because of the vital importance of a free press as a guardian of the public interest in reporting the news and speaking truth to power,” Loy said. “And the press can’t do its job if they’re going to be treated as arms of the government.”

Here’s how Stocktonia is covering the story of school board member’s arrest, search warrant.