Photojournalist’s equipment was searched, memo indicates

A photojournalist whose camera, cell phone and memory cards were seized by police in Sausalito has been assured by police and Marin County’s chief prosecutor that the items were not searched and will be returned to him unexamined. But a memo from a district attorney’s investigator suggests otherwise.

The memo, disclosed by an attorney for photojournalist Jeremy Portje, said the investigator, Brett Liddicoet, downloaded the contents of Portje’s cell phone, photographed and visually inspected his camera and memory cards, and, “as requested,” delivered the items to a Computer Crimes Task Force. The memo was dated Dec. 21 and addressed to Liddicoet’s boss, District Attorney Lori Frugoli.

It shows that “the story is not over yet,” said Portje’s lawyer, Charles Dresow.

Portje has been a Bay Area freelance and staff photographer for nearly 25 years. He was arrested Nov. 30, during a disturbance at a homeless encampment in Sausalito, where he was reportedly working on a documentary about homelessness.

Police said Portje struck an officer in the face with his camera, contradicting witnesses quoted by the weekly Pacific Sun, who said an officer accidentally hit himself with the camera and then punched Portje while other officers handcuffed him. He was arrested on suspicion of battery and obstructing an officer, jailed and released the next day on $15,000 bail.

Police kept his equipment, however, and obtained a warrant from Superior Court Judge Mark Talamantes on Dec. 9 to search the items, saying they might contain evidence that Portje was planning to confront or attack officers. They told Talamantes that Portje was “known to be actively anti-police,” and one officer at the scene said Portje “was not a true objective journalist.”

The First Amendment Coalition, a media support group, said police were trying to suppress legitimate coverage. Dresow said police have no authority to define who is a legitimate journalist, and also cited California’s shield law, which in most cases prohibits police from searching journalists’ equipment and unpublished material.

Frugoli, meanwhile, told police on Dec. 21 to put the case on hold and conduct no further inspection of Portje’s property. On Dec. 28, she announced that her office was dropping the case against Portje because the evidence did not show he had intended to injure the officer. And both the district attorney and Police Chief John Rohrbacher said Portje’s property would be returned to him without being searched.

Those assurances, Dresow said Monday, are hard to reconcile with the Dec. 21 memo to Frugoli by Liddicoet, an investigator in her office.

After police obtained the judicial search warrant, Liddicoet wrote, on Dec. 17, “I downloaded the data from the cellphone to my forensic computer. I photographed and visually inspected the video camera and memory cards.” He said he was not able to read or inspect any information from the memory cards, but that he placed all the items in a sealed envelope and delivered it to the office of the Northern California Computer Crimes Task Force, which provides technological support to law enforcement agencies.

“They’re having a hard time keeping their stories straight,” Dresow said. He said downloading the phone data could be considered a search, and officers could still examine the contents at any time. He said he wants the copies destroyed and the equipment returned to Portje as soon as possible, arguments he plans to make in court if necessary.

Asked about Liddicoet’s memo, Frugoli’s office repeated its Dec. 28 message that the charges were being dropped and said it had no further comment.