A critical battle recently raged at the Nevada state Supreme Court. Though it was dignified and orderly, it was as important to your rights as an American with free access to information, to your rights as an American voter, as any in recent memory.

It has been more than a year since the killing of Jeff German. As someone who sat on the same side of the table with German as a friend and on the other side of the table as a source, I have to admit that the sadness I felt at his passing has been distilled down to what I can honestly call hatred for the person that we are supposed to refer to as a suspect. We are supposed to use words like “alleged,” and “charged with,” at this point in the process. These are the reasons you don’t let people like me on that jury. 

As shocking as German’s killing was, as it turns out German’s death has resulted in a shoring up of Nevada’s shield law that we should all hope will stand the test of time. Ever since 1969 when Nevada passed its shield law, officially Nevada Revised Statute 49.275, reporters’ sources and notes have been protected from any state efforts to force them to reveal sources. 

Although the law carves out exceptions, no cop or judge, or anyone else for that matter, can force a reporter in Nevada to reveal their sources — not in a civil case, not in a criminal case. What made German’s case so exceptional is that law enforcement officials sought to pierce that shield in order to obtain evidence in the investigation of reporter’s killing. 

No doubt about it, there have always been protocols in place to search protected, sensitive, yet vitally important material that is used when those protected materials come into play in the courtroom. If it was an attorney who died under similar circumstances, the process is fairly routine. A judge appoints trusted, respected officers of the court, who are not directly involved in the case, to team up and review the materials to determine if there is evidence that is pertinent to the case and hold everything they see in confidence. If it’s not pertinent, access is not granted and the team moves on. The protected materials, at least in theory, remain protected. Pertinent information is forwarded to the court. 

The confidential information of other clients, other cases, is protected to the extent possible and the case moves forward. That was not the case here. Attorneys for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department contended the constitutional rights of German’s accused killer “take precedence over any reporter’s rights” according to court records and the Review-Journal. 

In the days and weeks following that declaration, there was a real question as to whether the confidentiality the Nevada shield law provides would survive German’s death. 

If anyone has any question as to why the survival of the shield’s law’s protection was so important, keep in mind that if someone wanted to get a reporter’s privileged source information, all they would have to do is kill the reporter. The sources would be exposed in the ensuing investigation soon enough. 

If it sounds like this is just an issue of a reporter‘s rights or the rights of a newspaper or any other media outlet, I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Sources aren’t just sources for media outlets. They are our sources as Americans. They our our sources to insider information. Sources show the other side of the story. Motivated by the desire to get the truth out, or motivated by revenge, antagonism, or a thousand other causes, sources move us one step closer to the truth as they bring alternate perspective. In many ways they serve some of the same purpose we have two sides represented in American politics, two sides represented in the courtroom. 

Without confidential sources, we are reduced to a government by news release. How many times have presidents, governors, top elected officials and captains of industry railed at and dismissed “sources?” How many times have executives in business and elected leaders conducted far-flung investigations to root out sources? 

Without sources Americans would have had to trust Nixon that he “was not a crook.” How long would the Vietnam War have dragged on had Daniel Ellsberg, one of the most famous sources of the last century, not opened the floodgates of information on the Pentagon’s coverups? As a source Ellsberg helped bring the war to a close. His work as a source saved lives. It was because of the bravery of sources that we came to know about the billions being wasted in the war in Iraq. It’s how we knew about American manufactured assault weapons being shipped off to Mexico. It’s how we as Americans learned the real story, the inside story, of what would have been countless coverups. Sources help keep things honest to the extent possible. There is always someone out there who knows the truth. Without protection of sources, the stories so critical to the shaping of our country may never have come to light. 

Just think of the courage it takes to stand up to that kind of power. We have to remember those sources take those unbelievable chances with their lives, their careers, because they trust the reporter they are working with and the shield laws help put steel in the spines of reporters who tell those stories every day.

In German’s case, we may never know the motivation of that strange little man who is in custody and hopefully will stay in custody for the rest of his life for the killing of German — but what we do know is that the death of investigative reporter Jeff German ended up making German a greater symbol of the rights of journalists in Nevada, and far beyond. 

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in October, in an order signed by justices Elissa Cadish, Kristina Pickering and Linda Bell, that Nevada’s shield law continues to apply after a reporter’s death, meaning in this case that German’s sources remain protected after his killing. Any other ruling would “be directly contrary to the statute’s purpose,” according to the state Supreme Court’s order.

“This is a groundbreaking precedent for journalists’ protections,” Glenn Cook, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President for News at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, said in an interview with Vegas Legal. “No one in our legal team could find a previously published decision in the United States judicial record that addressed whether shield law protections for reporters carry on after death. So it’s our best assessment that this Nevada Supreme Court decision is the first published decision in the United States expressly clarifying that shield law protections carry on after a reporter’s death, and that is massive.”

Heading into the court fight, the state Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling was far from a foregone conclusion, according to Cook.

“There are always risks when you litigate, and when you are asking a judge or a court to make a decision that is going to be groundbreaking in its nature,” Cook said. “The alternative outcome could have been disastrous. You could have had a court explicit provide an incentive for the murder of journalists. If you ended up with a ruling that said the reporter’s shield privilege dies when the journalist dies, then everybody out there who is a terrible actor would know that to get a peek inside a reporter’s computer or phone, then we know all we have to do is kill him or her, then get those devices before a judge or a court, and empty that device out and see what we find.

“So there was a potential for a terrible outcome in this case, but the stakes were high enough that we knew we had to litigate it. Jeff was a journalist for more than 40 years, he was exceptionally well-sourced, and the fact that we were contacted by people who told us they were confidential sources of Jeff’s and they were concerned they were on that phone, that completely justified us moving forward, seeking this decision, and getting it.” 

I’m going to bet issue will be taken up by the next session of the state Legislature where Nevada’s shield law will be expanded, making those protections for reporter’s sources black letter law. Hopefully the rest of the nation will make similar decisions regarding that rule, and if it comes to pass that a reporter’s sources and notes will be protected after their death, I think it’s only right that it will come to be known as the “Jeff German Law.”

Mark Fierro began his career as a reporter/anchor at KLAS-TV, the CBS television station in Las Vegas. He worked at the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. He served as communications consultant on IPO road shows on Wall Street. He provided litigation support for the Michael Jackson death trial. He is president of Fierro Communications, Inc., which conducts mock juries and focus groups in addition to public relations and marketing. Fierro is the author of several books including “Road Rage: The Senseless Murder of Tammy Meyers.”He has made numerous appearances on national TV news programs.

Jeff Haney serves as Executive Vice President of Operations for Fierro Communications, where he works on developing and directing all media, marketing, research, consulting and public relations strategies for Fierro Communications’ clients including those in business, government, the legal field and cutting-edge high technology.