REPORTER'S HANDBOOK ON MEDIA LAW
PART II
MEDIA ACCREDITATION
A. EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS DOES NOT REQUIRE ACCREDITATION, page 83
"The media does not need accreditation to attend public meetings or trials, gather information from public files and records, or otherwise perform newsgathering function. Absent a statute granting greater rights, however , the media enjoys only those rights enjoyed by the public at large. It is also generally true that members of the media need not be licensed to engage in newsgathering, and cannot be required to show proof of their media status before being granted access guaranteed to the public. On the other hand, having a "press pass" may make it easier for reporters and photographers to gain access to newsworthy scenes. For example, when news organizations cover "spot news" such as accidents and fires, "duly authorized" representatives of those organizations enjoy special access (Penal Code sections 409.05(d) and 409.6(d)) (see full discussion on special on special rights of entry, Chapter 11).
News organizations do not need to rely on a government agency to give them a press pass, however, and should feel free to make their own passes. A press pass should include the staff members name, photograph and statement that the individual is an official representative of the named news agency. The editor or publisher should also sign the pass and advice agencies that the can call the editor or publisher to confirm the individual's status. "
B. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS
Although not required, many agencies--typically law enforcement will make media accreditation available as a matter of efficiency. If a government agency does decide to provide media accreditation, its process is subject to constitutional standards. For example, the denial of a press pass to a particular reporter of photographer, or the cancellation of a pass already issued, is a government action that may violate the constitutional rights of the media representative. On the other hand, the courts have recognized that denial or revocation of press accreditation by a government agency can be justified under the First Amendment if they serve a "compelling" official interest, Lewis v. Baxley, 368 F. Supp. 768 (1973).
Press passes may not be denied in reaction to the content of the applicant's publication or broadcasts, and the meting out of passes may not be arbitrarily administered or based on the content of the applicant's writing or that of the organization that he or she represents. For example, agencies may ration passes that may be used to access accident, crime or emergency areas based on the applicant's demonstrated need, including one's relation to a news organization that regularly covers spot news (Los Angeles Free Press v Los Angeles, 9 Cal. App 3d 448 (1970). However, access cannot be denied simply because the agency views the news organization as not "established". Quad-City Community News Service v Jebens, 334 F. Supp.8 (1971).
Further, the issuing agency must "articulate and publish an explicit and meaningful standard governing denial" and furnish a basis for denial, with an opportunity to rebut a decision to deny accreditation as a "minimum" procedural due process guarantee that the denial is not "based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons." Sherill v Knight, 569 F. 2d 124 (1977).
In Sherrill, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit specified that the accrediting agency must provide the applicant, in case the denial is sustained after the rebuttal has been heard, with a "final written statement of the reasons for denial." Having exhausted the administrative remedies, the disappointed applicant may then challenge the denial in court. An agency's decision regarding accreditation "must be no more restrictive of individual rights than a reasonably necessary" to protect a sufficiently compelling government interest. Failure to follow these procedures may violate the journalists right to equal protection, but also may be deemed unconstitutional taking the property interest of the journalist may be necessary for the journalist to perform his or her job.
SUPPORTING CITATIONS
Savage v Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 21 Cal.App.4th 434 , 26 Cal Rptr. 2d 305, 22 Media L. Rep. 1737 (1994); a California appellate court disapproved the blacklisting of a reporter by a public utility company official where the utility enjoyed "a state-protected monopoly".
Sherill v Knight, 569 F. 2d 124, 186 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 3 Media L. Rep 54 (1977)