LaFever Invokes Shield Law
Court review underway over access to unpublished journalistic materials
Clarification: Sentences were added describing the role of a special master. (January 2, 2026 7:30 p.m.)
Journalist and high school teacher Matt LaFever has filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the Ukiah Police Department, according to court sources familiar with the filing.
LaFever was arrested on a misdemeanor allegation of annoying or molesting a minor, a charge defined under California law. He is represented by Sonoma County defense attorney Orchid Vaghti. The Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office has not filed criminal charges in the case.
District Attorney David Eyster said in an interview that a report published Friday by the Berkeley-based Mendocino Voice stating that he planned to hold a closed-to-the-public arraignment on Monday was inaccurate.
Eyster said he is not personally handling the LaFever matter, having assigned it to another prosecutor, but said he believes a closed arraignment would likely not be lawful.
U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishes a strong presumption of public access to criminal proceedings. In the 1980 case Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that, “Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public.”
Court records show that on Dec. 2, Vaghti filed a motion seeking the appointment of a special master. The motion was approved on Dec. 17 by Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Keith Faulder.
A special master is a neutral court appointee who independently reviews disputed materials and reports to the judge, a safeguard commonly used in cases involving reporter’s shield law concerns to protect unpublished journalistic work while a legal dispute is resolved. Vaghti declined to comment for this story.
The California Shield Law, which is codified in the state constitution, protects journalists from being compelled to disclose confidential sources or unpublished materials, including notes, photographs, and digital communications such as messages exchanged on platforms like Snapchat.
While the shield law most commonly arises when a reporter is covering a case, courts have recognized that shield law protections may still apply when law enforcement seeks access to a journalist’s unpublished materials, even when the journalist is the subject of an investigation or a party to a case.
According to attorneys for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the California Supreme Court has held that prosecutors in criminal cases do not possess constitutional or statutory rights sufficient to override the reporter’s privilege.
In a 2000 decision, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two described the shield law’s protection as “virtually absolute,” ruling that it “need never yield to any superior constitutional right of the People.” The case involved a Marin Independent Journal reporter held in contempt for refusing to disclose unpublished interview material in a homicide investigation.
Eyster said any potential charging decision in the LaFever matter will be deferred until the special master completes and submits a report.
Impressive how the special master mechanism creates a procedural firewall here. The California shield law's "virtually absolute" phrasing from the 2000 appellate ruling is way stronger than most people realize, especially when prosecutors try to argue exigent circumstances or overiding public interest. I've seen cases where the shield protects even when the journalist is a subject rather than just a reporter, and that nuance is critical for anyone doing accountability journalism. Dunno if the LaFever case will set any new precendent but the appointment timing suggests the judeg sees merit in the privilege claim.
This article is confusing. From the text of the article, it seems that Lafever's attorney sought a special master, which is *commonly* used for reporter's privilege cases — not that he sought a special master FOR assessing Lafever's reporters privilege. You have access to the court records — did they specifically state that Lafever wanted to appoint the special master for this purpose? If so, why didn't you say so in the body of the article, along with any quotes? Can you provide copies of the court records?