6The Daily Tar HeelTuesday, September 21, 1982
mm
90th year of editorial freedom
John Drescher, Editor
ANN PETERS, Managing Editor
KERRY DEROCHI, Associate Editor
RACHEL PERRY, University Editor
ALAN CHAPPLE, City Editor
JIM WRINN, State and National Editor
Linda Robertson, Spa Editor
LAURA SEIFERT, News Editor
KEN MlNGlS, Associate Editor
ELAINE MCCLATCHEY, Projects Editor
Susan Hudson, Features Editor
LEAH T ALLEY, ylrts Editor
Teresa Curry, weekend Editor
AL STEELE, Photography Editor
Free press-Fair trial
By STEPHEN RIDDELL
ding to the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press
a national organization based in Washington, D.C.
The cases resulted in 18 contempt of court citations and 13
1 ; , jail sentences. Although some of the sentences were stayed
The recent jailing of a Boston newspaperman for failing pending appeal, three reporters served time in jail and five
to reveal a confidential source when subpoenaed to testify news organizations were fined for refusing to disclose con-
Chemical conflict
The protest in Warren County over the state's PCB dump site continued
Monday with the arrest of more than 130 people, most of them genuinely
concerned about the dump's location. But recent comments by several of
the protesters show an apparent desire by some to make a racial issue out
of what has so far been a sincere protest based on environmental con
cerns. Warren County residents repeatedly have made clear the intensity of
their opposition to the dump's location. From the start, the main issue
was concern for the environment and fear that the poisonous chemical
would leak into the soil and the local water supply. Only recently has
race been mentioned as a possible cause for the dump's location.
Warren County is 59 percent black and has the lowest per capita in
come in the state. But only after studying several proposed dump sites
across North Carolina did state and federal officials agree on Warren
County. Soil quality water tabl& level, population density and the avail
ability of land were all factors cited by state officials in making the deci
sion. The state's decision, though sound, means that it has an obligation
to frequently monitor the area for health hazards.
, Both blacks and whites living near the dump site are understandably
opposed to its location. But as last week's protests continued into the
weekend, new protesters opposed to the dump for primarily racial rea
sons joined the fight.
The Rev. Leon White and the Rev. Ben Chavis, both of the United
Church of Christ Cornmissidri ph Racial Justice, said they felt that the
landfill had been placed in Warren County because of the high percentage
of blacks living there. Joseph' Lowery, the president of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, also felt the location of the dump was
racially motivated.
What is at stake in Warren County is not a racial issue; it is the safety
in court has pushed the free press-fair trial issue into the
news again. Across the country, courts and newsmen are
searching for the balance between the First Amendment
guarantee of a free press and the Sixth Amendment rights
of a defendant to a fair trial.
On one side, newsmen say they must have a qualified
privilege to protect confidential sources. They say the flow
of information will dry up if they can't give sources pro
tection adding that rules compelling them to testify in
court have a chilling effect on newsgathering and
dissemination.
On the opposite side, court officials say a defendant's
right to a fair trial is paramount. If a reporter has vital in
formation about a crime that has been committed, he
should be required to reveal it as any other American
citizen would be, according to the judges.
The issue is a classic constitutional confrontation, but
the U.S. Supreme Court has been very reluctant to deal
with the free press-fair trial dilemma. Instead of showing
leadership and guidance, the court has dodged the sub
ject, leaving it to the states to handle on an individual
basis. Unfortunately, the result has been an erratic,
piecemeal set of rules and laws that tends to confuse
- rather than clarify the problem.
The Supreme Court must realize that the problem isn't
going to be solved effectively on a state-by-state basis. The
maze of conflicting rules and case law is just too confus
ing. And the problem is growing, too. At least 46 reporters
and news organizations have fought subpoenas during the
past 18 months, demanding disclosure of confidential
sources and information used in compiling stories, accor-
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
hdential information. In other cases, settlements were
reached, often with the reporter agreeing to testify only as
to the accuracy of published information.
In general, a reporter is most likely to be subpoenaed if
the court believes he has information that is centrally rele
vant to the case and there is no way of obtaining it
elsewhere. (This is particularly true in cases of serious
felonies such as rape and murder.) The subpoenas can de
mand names of sources, notes of off-the-record interviews
and even the private thoughts of reporters as they wrote
stories.
In the Boston case mentioned earlier, veteran Herald
American reporter Paul Corsetti was lucky because he on-
ly had to spend eight days of his three-month sentence for
contempt of court in the Middlesex County Jail in Cam
bridge. He was released when Gov. Edward J. King acted
to commute his sentence.
King refused to exonerate Corsetti by granting him a
pardon which would have cleared his police record. He
added that Corsetti would be the last newsman to get relief
from the governor's office in cases involving protection of
confidential sources when announcing the decision.
The Massachusetts Superior Court has been firm in its
stand against recognizing a qualified privilege for
newsmen. And reporters have gotten no help from the
state legislature in the form of a shield law which would
give journalists statutory rights to qualified privilege.
Thus, reporters in the state have relatively little protection.
About 26 states have passed shield laws which prevent
reporters from being held in contempt (or refusing to
reveal sources. Some protect all information, including
notes and the reporters' private thoughts, while others
protect just the identities of sources. In other states, court
have on occasion granted reporters some limited constitu
tional protection in the absence of an explicit shield lawf
In North Carolina, there is no shield law and practicallj
no case law in the free press-fair triararea. In general, th
courts and media representatives have worked together ii!
a spirit of cooperation when problems have arisen in thi j
gray area of the law. I
Some press advocates have taken a purist approach
arguing against shield laws.. They strictly interpret the Firsj
Amendment statement that, Congress "shall pass no lavl
abridging freedom of the press" to mean just what it saysj
They argue that journalists don't need the protection
because of the First Amendment guarantee and go on to
say that Congress has no right to pass a shield law. 1
It's clear that until the Supreme Court gives the state!
some guidance in the free press-fair trial area, confusion
will reign. The Court last jostled with the subject in a 1972
Ohio case. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the majority held thai
reporters who are eyewitnesses to crimes may not refuse tq
divulge information and sources to a grand jury. Sine
that decision came down, the court has been presented
with several cases involving free press questions, but eacn
time it denied review.
The reasons for the Court's inaction are two-fold. FirstJ
the justices don't want to review a case that is difficul
because the nuances and complexities of hard cases often
make for bad law. Secondly, the press has been reluctant
to press forward with weak cases fearing that the Court
will set a precedent adverse to journalists. 1
Both sides should realize that reporters don't work in a!
voir! Ppal li ff rirnimctiincft nwta oooVi roca imlm.n n-rA
m its own way difficult.
But these are not reasons to avoid the issue. It's time for
the Supreme Court to show some leadership by meeting!
the free press-fair trial issue head on.
Stephen Riddell is a first-year law student from Boston,
Mass., and was editor of "The Gamecock at the University
of South Carolina.
ororities have failed challenge
To the editor:
In response to "Sororities voice reaction
to black rushee" (DTH, Sept. 17), though
the article never states explicitly that
of all its residents. Original protest leaders seem to understand this Melanie wAson a sorority b4
they have been emphasizing the bi-racial makeup of the protests. "We
were on the CBS Evening News before Ben Chavis ever got here," said
one protester. Local residents should not allow their fight to be twisted by
a few professional agitators, late-comers to the protest who simply want
to make it a battle between whites and blacks.
Accepted murder
It's been called the "socially accepted form of murder." The horror
stories of drunk drivers who maim and kill and then virtually escape
punishment are sad, disheartening and shockingly numerous. News
week reports that more Americans have died at the hands of drunk drivers
during the past two years than were killed in Vietnam. A 1980 survey by
the 1J .S. Department of Transportation found that more than 40 percent
of traffic fatalities included at least one driver who had been drinking.
Everyone deplores drunk driving, but as long as there have been alcohol
and automobiles, convicted drunk drivers usually have received little or
no punishment. Somehow all the crusading rhetoric about punishing
drunk drivers has evaporated once a judge or jury set its eyes on the hard
working father of four who lives down the street or the wholesome,
squeaky clean college student who wants to attend graduate school. With
plea bargaining and lenient sentencing, offenders often are back on the
road soon, and then often are arrested for driving under the influence
again.
That's why it's encouraging that the recent public outcry against drunk
drivers is causing lawmakers and law enforcers to crack down on punish
ment. Tougher laws are working in a number of states. For example,
stricter laws in New York State took effect in November. In the first four
months of 1982, there was a decrease of 25 percent in the number of
automobile fatalities over the same period the year before.
Tougher laws, though necessary, are not enough. Previous crack
downs have worked for a while, then lost their effectiveness. Besides
tougher laws, states need an emphasis on prevention through alcohol and
traffic safety education, and rehabilitation programs for those convicted
of drunk driving. It is up to the public to press a surge of urgency that
drunk driving laws must be reformed, and to press lawmakers to have the
political will to make the reforms: 1 '
because she was black, no statements of
Panhellenic representatives excluded this
possibility. We do not wish to single out
any person or sorority house involved in
this issue. Rather, this example reminds us
that racism is not a closed issue in our
society. We believe, however, that the
sorority system as a whole has failed the
challenge of accepting a black sister.
The challenge has not passed. The issue
should not die with the 1982 Panhellenic
Formal Rush. The Campus Y has no
definite solution, yet, true to our history,
we offer our energies and resources and
welcome any concerned individual who
wants to discuss this issue.
Bob Royalty
Anne Beeson
Co-presidents, Campus Y
and the Campus Y
executive committee
Drivel-like whinings
To the editor:
This letter is in response to the drivel
like whinings of Ken Mingis over his ex
periences at the UNC-Pittsburgh football
game "Pittsburgh America's city of
steel lacks luster" (D777, Sept. 16). First,
let it be clear that the undersigned are both
loyal Perm State fans, so our defense of
the city of Pittsburgh, its university and its
people is only motivated by our distaste
for Mingis' distorted, derogatory
statements. ,
Mingis' unfair appraisal of the city and
its people is based on only 20 hours spent
in Pittsburgh and seems to reflect a bad ex
perience in a city. It is not fair to condemn
the city and its people
"America's City of Steel lacks
luster. . .the people are of an entirely dif
ferent mentality there Behind the
facade of that big, modern city lie frustra
tion and coldness... a violence, an
underlying anger that lives in some of the
VC66 ON, LET'S 60-HWE I EVER UP ftu VVR0N&
3
people....
It may not have been enough time to
objectively see the city, but it was enough
to get some Reeling about the people we
saw.
And I didn't like it."
And then again, maybe Mingis mentali
ty is always ready to make poor
judgments. Certainly he is hung up about
his southland. Nowhere in the article does
Mingis assert that there were defamatory
remarks about his precious South. Only
Mingis seerru to equate these age-worn dif
ferences with a football replay of the Civil
War. Mingis again:
"I've grown up in North Carolina and
heard the phrase 'Damn Yankee' all my
life Still, after some of the things I saw
that night, the thought crossed my mind
more than once."
Mingis did the right thing by fleeing
back to what he calls "the safe South,"
but he errs by equating the entire character
of the city of Pittsburgh with the actions of
a few.
Unfortunately, jerks can be found
everywhere, even in quaint little villages
with pale blue people and tar-filled heads
(aren't broad generalizations great?).
Dan Carol
Francis Krizmanich
Generalizing unfair
To the editor:
When I lived in the North, my friends
and neighbors told me that all Southerners
were stupid, slow and backward. They
said they had met enough Southerners to
convince them that everyone in. the South
BUI arrest: what it means and what to do
By DA VID R UDOLF
and
DONALD BESKIND
Across the United States, public of
ficials at every level are feeling the effects
of an organized campaign against drivers
who drink. Whether the pressure group
is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers), or other similar organizations,
the message to public officials is the same
crack down on drunk drivers.
The pressure is having its impact in
North Carolina. Arrests and convictions
for driving under the influence (DUI) are
up.
Under the circumstances, if you drink, .
you need to know about the crime of
DUI, the penalties, and what to do if you
are stopped or charged. This article tries
to cover those questions. Please
remember, however, that there is no
substitute for effective representation by
a competent attorney.
Nature of the Offense
It is a misdemeanor in North Carolina
to drive a car while "under the
influence" of any alcoholic beverage or
drug. "Under the influence" is not
necessarily the same as drunk. The test is
whether your physical or mental faculties
are "appreciably impaired." Thus, you
may be guilty of DUI if your mental
abilities or physical reflexes have been af
fected to a noticeable degree by an
alcoholic beverage or drug.
It is particularly important for
students to realize that they can be con
victed of DUI even if they never leave the
campus, or are simply riding through one
parking lot to another. The law
specifically applies to any "public
vehicular area," including the grounds of
any public or private university. It also
specifically applies to mopeds.
Finally, if you knowingly let someone
who is under the influence drive your
car, you too can be charged with DUI.
The penalties are the same as for the ac
tual driver.
Penalties for DUI
Conviction for a first offense of DUI
carries a sentence of up to six months in
jail, a fine of $100 to $500, and loss of .
license for one year. Second offenders
(within three years) get a jail sentence of
three days to a year, a fine of $200 to
$500, and lose their licenses for four
years. The penalties for three-time losers'
are even worse.
That's what the courts can do. The in
surance companies provide even more
punishment. Every conviction of DUI
raises the cost of your insurance 450 per
cent for three years. A typical policy,
which costs $300 per year, costs $1,350
per year after the DUI conviction.
What to do if you are stopped for DUI
When a police officer stops you for
driving under the influence, you will be
asked for a license and registration. Then
the officer will ask you to get out of the
car to answer certain questions and take
field sobriety tests. The sobriety tests in
volve things like walking a straight line,
picking up a coin, or reciting the
alphabet. The questions are usually
about things like when you last slept, ate
or drank; what you had to drink; and
whether you suffer' from any physical
ailments which might account for erratic
driving or inability to pass the sobriety
tests.
When the officer asks you to take the
tests or answer the questions, you face an
important decision. On the one hand,
anything you do or say may ultimately be
used against you in court and you have
the right to refuse to take the tests or
answer the questions. On the other, a
cooperative attitude towards the officer
generally works to your advantage in
plea-bargaining and at sentencing, par
ticularly if it's your first offense.
If, after asking you to perform the
tests and answer the questions, the of
ficer believes you are under the influence,
you will be placed under arrest and
brought to the police station for a
breathalyzer test. This test measures the
percentage of alcohol in your blood.
At this point, you face another critical
decision. The law presumes that a
reading of .10 or greater constitutes be
ing "under the influence." Indeed, it is a
separate criminal offense to drive with a
blood-alcohol level of .10 or more. Thus;
if you decide to take the test and blow
more than .10, it becomes very difficult
to beat the driving under the influence
charge at a trial. On the other hand, a
willful refusal to take the test results in an
automatic and total revocation of your
license for six months. This revocation is
more severe than the one which accom
panies a first conviction for driving
under the influence. For a first offense
DUI, a judge may grant a limited driving
privilege which lets you drive during cer
tain hours and in certain places. This
privilege is not available if you refuse the
breathalyzer test:
Faced with this choice,' most first of
fenders wisely choose to take the test. Of
course, for those who already have a
DUI conviction, the decision is much
tougher. Although the refusal to take the
test can be used against you in court, a
high reading may virtually guarantee a
second offense conviction. This costs
you your license for four years, with no
limited privilege. -
If you choose to take the test, you
have the right to a 30-minute delay in
order to have a witness of your choice
there during the test. If possible, you
should exercise this right, since this per
son may be able to provide valuable
testimony about how the test was ad
ministered and how you acted. Choose
someone who will make a good witness
in court.
After the test (or. your refusal), you
will be brought before the local
magistrate who sets bond and a court
date. Make sure the magistrate knows
your background and that you intend to
return to court to face the charges. Ask
to be released on your own recognizance
or an unsecured appearance bond. If the
magistrate sets a secured bond that you
cannot afford, call a local bail bond
sman. They are generally available 24
hours a day and charge a fee equal to 15
percent of the amount of the bond.-
How DUI cases are handled in court
Many people who are arrested for first
offense DUI simply plead guiny.
Although the judge determines the
sentence in each case individually, the
typical punishment for a first offense is
usually a fine of $100 to $200, court costs
of $31, a suspended jail sentence, and a
one-year loss of license.
The judge, if asked, may grant a
limited driving privilege which generally
allows you to drive to school or work
during the period of revocation. The
judge cannot, however, do anything
about the insurance points. The 450 per
cent increase in insurance is automatic if
you are convicted for driving under the
influence.
For this reason, and to avoid the
revocation of your license, it is far
preferable to plead guilty to the lesser of
fense of careless and reckless" driving, if
the district attorney is willing to plea
bargain in your case. Although the
criminal penalty' for this offense, is the
same as for DUI, it does not cost you
your license, and raises your insurance
only 200 percent rather than 450 percent.
Finally, of course, anyone charged
with driving under the influence has an
absolute right to plead not guilty and re
quest a trial. This option should certainly
be considered by anyone whose
breathalyzer is below . 10, since that is the
level at which the law presumes someone
is "under the influence."
Even if your breathalyzer results are
above .10, however, there are a number
of technical objections and defenses
which can be made regarding the ad
missability or accuracy of the
breathalyzer results. Alternatively, the
judge or jury may find you guilty of
careless and reckless driving rather than
DUI, thus saving your license and in
surance points. Once again, however, the
decision to request a trial rather than
plea-bargain or plead guilty is one on
which an attorney's advice should be
sought.
David Rudolf and Donald Beskind are
attorneys practicing in Durham with the
firm of Beskind and Rudolf. Both teach
at the UNC Law School.
i mv aoiuc. iiicn t liiuvcu IU U1C OUUUi
and met them face to face for myself. Bus
it Onlv took a few dav in MnrtVi Pnrrrfi'n J
to realize that my northern friends hac
falsely stereotyped all Southerners becaus
of one or two bad encounters. I experi
enced consideration, helpfulness and in-f
telligence with almost every acquaintance
As I became more friendly with my new!
companions and neighbors, I heard the
same from them as I had heard from my
northern associates, "All the Northerners
are ill-tempered, ill-mannered and darnr!
Yankees."
Last week I read an article, "Pittsburgh
America's city of steel lacks luster"
(DTH, Sept. 16), that reflected the sam
stereotyping and generalizing that I havi
experienced on numerous occasions. Thi
column described a group of students' ex
penences m Pittsburgh before, during am
alter the Pitt-Carolina game. Althou:
Ken Mingis, the writer, states that th
phrase "Damn Yankees rarely holds
true," he generalizes that all the Pittsburi
fans were unruly and violent. I know th
writer was reflecting on his experiences an
I'm sure everything he wrote about dii
happen, but I was at the game as well and
didn't experience anything like his frien
and he did.
On the evening of the same, my sister
Rowena, my fellow Tar Heel, Yvonne and
proudly put on our Carolina sweaters an
headed for Three Rivers Stadium. On th
way, I stopped at a store for some film am
was greeted with friendly inquiries am
i .i . .
preuicuons aoout tne evenine & comin
w ' """' uuvull Ulv JCUiii
lot of the stadium, we were addressed with!
the expected, "You came a long way just
to see your team lose" or "Go back tel
North Carolina where you belong." Once?
in the stadium, we finally found our seats
(which turned out to be the very first row
of Carolina fans). Everyone in front of us!
was from Pitt University or the surround-l
ing area. Yes, they screamed obscenities at'
lie hut tViPV silcri rrrrmprApi nc rn netting'
on the scoreboard first. If anyone was ex
posed and vulnerable to Pitt fans, wi
were, but we never experienced anythin
unusually cruel. Finally, on the way out ot
the parking lot, some Pitt fans even stop-
ped traffic to help us get out, even though
we had a Carolina sticker on our back win
dow. The goal of this letter is to point ou
that everv town, everv state and everv are;
- - - - j 1
of the country has its good and bad at-l
tributes. Just as Mingis experienced thtf
bad, I experienced the good. Generalizing -
and stereotyping is always unfair and
although I love the South and will pro
bably never return to the North, I wil
i i i
aiways rememoer tne goou experience
and good friends I have collected there.
Kachcl Nugent;
A-18 Carolina Apt