Story
Oct 20, 2026
Moraes’ source inquiry tests the line between reporting and alleged stalking
The dispute turns on competing readings of the same investigation: press advocates say tracing a reporter’s informants threatens a constitutional safeguard, while Justice Alexandre de Moraes argues that the safeguard cannot prevent scrutiny of suspected crimes.
Federal Police investigators initially withheld conversations from an inquiry involving Maranhão journalist Luís Pablo Conceição Almeida because the material could reveal the source of photographs, videos and information used in his reporting on official vehicles linked to Justice Flávio Dino’s family. A federal police delegate cited the Constitution’s protection for source confidentiality, according to accounts of the case.1
Moraes ordered the material added within 48 hours. His position, as reported, was not that source confidentiality lacks value: he recognized it as a means of ensuring publication of information in the public interest. But he said the protection “cannot be used as a shield” for criminal conduct, given indications that the case could involve the offence of stalking or persecution under Brazil’s Penal Code.2
That distinction is the central fault line. Lawyers for people identified as possible sources, and the journalist’s defence, contend that judicial efforts to identify informants undermine press freedom and the constitutional relationship between reporters and sources. In September, Almeida’s lawyers sought to close the inquiry, arguing that its origins were flawed and that the evidence did not establish stalking or payment for adverse reporting.3
The available accounts also complicate the allegation behind the investigation. Police said they could not conclude that a R$100,000 payment connected to a rural-property transaction financed reports about Dino. They reportedly found messages suggesting an intention to produce unfavorable content about him, but not proof that Almeida followed vehicles or used the information to intimidate or constrain Dino.
Dino’s office, meanwhile, denied irregular use of official vehicles and said the inquiry concerned improper access to restricted security information and its use in what authorities regarded as unlawful monitoring. The case therefore leaves two principles in direct tension: protecting reporting based on confidential sources, and investigating whether the acquisition or use of such information crossed into alleged criminal surveillance.