Wachter Morris added that she does not believe a conflict of interest existed between her job as a news reporter and the fact that she reported an internal newsroom issue to a law enforcement authority, in this case her police chief husband.

“I felt an obligation to both,” she said. “I felt if my husband was the victim of an alleged crime, and I was seeing it happen, I felt obligated to bring it to the attention of my employer and my husband as the victim.”

Litowitz said he recorded the conversations with Chief Morris and Exposito to assure the accuracy of the conversations and to get the details of the story correct. He said he didn’t consider that an illegal practice.

“When I introduce myself as a representative of the New Castle News, there is no expectation of privacy,” he said. “That has already been determined by the state courts.”

Litowitz added, “I tape interviews to ensure the highest accuracy of my articles. I want to make sure I am providing the readers with the best information possible. Recording also allows me to focus on the topic at hand and interact with the person I am interviewing. Written notes impede that process.”

He added that he does few interviews by phone, preferring to meet people in person. These interviews also are taped, he said.

Reporter Lowry said she did not consider the taped interviews to be ethically wrong.

“Everybody who talks to a reporter knows that the reporter isn’t talking just to be friendly,” she said. “They are talking to gain information. Jim (Morris) knew he was talking to a reporter about a story.”

Lowry added she did not use any of the recorded interviews in her story.

James Manolis, the newspaper’s attorney in the case, said there is some legal precedent that implies the state law requiring two-party consent to a recorded phone conversation is overly broad and doesn’t always apply to journalists.

“Part of our argument (to reclaim the computer) is going to be that this statute may not be constitutional in and of itself, and what Mr. Litowitz is alleged to have done may not even constitute a crime under Pennsylvania law,” Manolis said.

“And if it doesn’t, then the seizure of this computer and the retention of this computer is something that is not necessary or lawful.”

Publisher Thomson also doubted a crime was committed.

“Even if the phone conversation was taped, any public official speaking with a reporter has no reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said. “Beyond that, we are confident that case law holds this particular statute to be so overly broad that it is unenforceable.”

Furthermore, Thomson said, “the seizure of the computer represents a dangerous intrusion by police to some very profoundly held First Amendment issues. There is a large amount of information on the equipment seized that we don’t want police officials to be rummaging indiscriminately through.