Andy Harris defends threat to refer student reporter to prosecutor in Maryland

Andy Harris threatened to refer a Capital News Service student reporter to a prosecutor after she recorded him during a press exchange in Cambridge, Maryland. The confrontation followed a debate with Dan Schwartz, Harris’s Democratic challenger. The Washington Examiner and International Business Times describe a threat of possible prosecution; the Washington Examiner quotes Harris saying, “If you record, we will refer you to the prosecutor.”

The incident took place on Tuesday evening, October 13, according to the International Business Times and the Washington Examiner. ABC News identifies the scene as Cambridge and describes Harris speaking with the media. Its excerpt also reports that Harris repeatedly invoked Maryland’s all-party consent law, formally called the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, while objecting to the recording. The sources offer different assessments of the legal point. ABC News says there was no basis under the state’s two-party consent law to suggest that recording the exchange, by itself, was a crime. The Washington Examiner reports that Harris defended his position in an interview with Maryland’s Fox45, saying the consent rule would apply to everyone. The International Business Times likewise reports that Harris told the reporter the recording was unlawful. These are accounts of the argument and legal assessment; none reports that prosecutors charged the student reporter. The International Business Times adds that Harris called for police to take the reporter’s camera. ABC News describes him pointing angrily toward a woman in the audience and includes his complaint about the recording disrupting his ability to answer questions. The Washington Examiner says Harris later told Fox45 that he had left the room with attendees and their cameras. It also reports that, when asked whether he would apologise to the reporter, Harris said he would speak with her by phone if she called his office. Harris framed the episode in political terms in the Fox45 interview, saying it was not newsworthy for what he called “the liberal media” to badger a conservative politician. That was his characterization of the press exchange. The Washington Examiner presents his later defence, while ABC News supplies a contrary assessment of whether the recording itself provided grounds for a criminal allegation. The International Business Times reports that an organisation issued a statement dated October 14 calling for Harris to apologise for attempting to stop Murphy from reporting. The excerpt does not identify the organisation. The Washington Examiner identifies the student journalist as a Capital News Service reporter and refers to her as Murphy. The accounts establish a threat and a subsequent public defence; they do not report a prosecution or a legal ruling arising from the encounter. The immediate next step described by Harris is a possible phone conversation if the reporter contacts his office. The sources also document the organisation’s call for an apology. The dispute therefore centers on Harris’s effort to restrict recording at the press exchange, his invocation of state consent law, and the opposing view that the recording alone did not establish a crime.