Judge orders stop to FBI search of devices seized from Washington Post reporter

"The day the FBI raided Natanson's residence, undersigned counsel reached out to the government to advise that the seized items contain materials protected by the First Amendment and the attorney-client privileges,"

"Undersigned counsel asked the government to refrain from reviewing the documents pending judicial resolution of the dispute, but the government refused."

"The filing said that unless a standstill order is issued, "the government will commence an unrestrained search of a journalist's work product that violates the First Amendment and the attorney-client privilege, ignores federal statutory safeguards for journalists, and threatens the trust and confidentiality of sources.""

"The six devices seized from Natanson "contain essentially her entire professional universe: more than 30,000 Post emails from the last year alone, confidential information from and about sources (including her sources and her colleagues' sources), recordings of interviews, notes on story concepts and ideas, drafts of potential stories, communications with colleagues about sources and stories, and The Post's content management system that houses all articles in progress," the Post said. "The devices also housed Natanson's encrypted Signal messaging platform that she used to communicate with her more than 1,100 sources."

Porter ordered the government to file a reply by January 28 and scheduled oral arguments for February 6 after The Post requested expedited briefing. FBI agents seized six devices from Natanson, including her phone, a 1TB portable hard drive, interview-recording equipment, a Garmin watch, a personal laptop, and a Post-issued laptop. Natanson maintained an encrypted Signal contact list of about 1,100 current and former government employees. Attorneys said the seized items include First Amendment-protected material and attorney-client privileged communications and that the government refused to refrain from reviewing them. The filing warned that an unrestricted search would violate constitutional and statutory protections and imperil source confidentiality; the devices reportedly contained more than 30,000 Post emails, recordings, notes, drafts, colleague communications, and the Post’s content management system.

Read at Ars Technica