Judge blocks DoJ from searching Washington Post reporter's seized devices
Briefly

Judge blocks DoJ from searching Washington Post reporter's seized devices
"In his order, Porter reprimanded the federal government for failing to include and analyze the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 in its application for the search warrant, as the application involved a journalists' first amendment rights. This omission has seriously undermined the court's confidence in the government's handling of the matter."
"On 14 January, the FBI raided the home of Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials. A self described federal government whisperer, Natanson has also reported on federal employees who were laid off by the Trump administration during Elon Musk's Doge cuts developing nearly 1,200 confidential sources from across 120 government agencies."
"After the FBI raid, the Washington Post asked the court to order the devices returned, and Porter ordered the government not to immediately search Natanson's devices until after a hearing. In Tuesday's order, judge Porter noted that an assistant United States attorney had applied for the warrant to search Natanson's home in his court."
A federal magistrate judge ruled that the Justice Department cannot search electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson during an FBI raid investigating classified material retention. The judge will instead conduct the search personally. The government's warrant application was criticized for omitting the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 and relevant case law protecting journalists' First Amendment rights. The FBI seized multiple devices from Natanson, a reporter who covers federal employees and has developed nearly 1,200 confidential sources across government agencies. The judge acknowledged that potential classified national security information complicates the matter but determined the government's approach was inadequate and required judicial oversight to protect press freedoms.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]