Carr's wrong turn

The Seattle city attorney's decision to subpoena three Seattle Times reporters threatens to set a precedent disastrous to the public, which counts on the media to scrutinize government officials.

Attorney Tom Carr is demanding the investigative reporters reveal their sources about alleged misconduct by Seattle police officers in stories published in 2004 and 2005. The Times is fiercely fighting the subpoenas, arguing its reporters cannot be compelled to reveal their sources. The First Amendment and the recently passed state reporter shield law pose high hurdles for Seattle's witch hunt.

Carr is defending the city in a federal lawsuit brought by John Powers, a former police officer, who says he was defamed by named and unnamed city officials quoted in the stories. The department found Powers guilty of misconduct, misuse of authority and other violations. Ultimately, he was fired. He sued the city for wrongful firing and claims he was defamed by city officials.

If reporters are forced to reveal their sources, people troubled by wrongdoing will keep their stories to themselves because the costs of being exposed are too great. As a result, the public will never know about an agency's cover-up, a company's illegal market manipulation or fraudulent billing of state and federal agencies.

That nuance seems lost on Carr. He is responsible for a troubling shift in the state's legal interpretation of attorney-client privilege when it comes to disclosing government records. Ironically, Gov. Christine Gregoire appointed him to chair the state's so-called "Sunshine Committee" to review the state's exemptions to the open-records law.

But the point was not lost on another municipal attorney. On these pages in 2005, the late Norm Maleng, former King County prosecutor, argued in favor of a reporters shield law. He said:

"For me, it is about the preservation of a critical institution in our American society: a free and independent media that can serve as a watchdog on all branches of government. For the media to preserve this role, a reporter must be able to receive sensitive information upon a promise of confidentiality."

Carr got this call seriously wrong.