There was an important ruling last week by Magistrate Judge William B. Porter of the Eastern District of Virginia in favor of the press regarding the handling of files and materials taken in a search of the home of a Washington Post reporter. Judge Porter ruled against the Trump Administration in what he called an “unsupervised, wholesale” search of the files of Hannah Natanson, who covers the federal government for The Post. Instead, the court itself will conduct the review in camera.
In his opinion, Judge Porter chastized the Trump Administration for searching Natanson’s home without additional protections for the journalist’s interests in privileged sources. This has been a long-standing objection of the press to the Justice Department, which maintains that its own “filter teams” can review the files and materials relevant to their investigation and then hand them over to prosecution teams.
The Justice Department was investigating a Maryland government contractor, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who has been indicted on charges of transmitting and retaining classified national defense information.
Judge Porter chastized the government for failing to mention a 1980 law, the Privacy Protection Act, in seeking a search warrant of Ms. Natanson’s home. The PPA mandates that a search for reporting materials “shall be unlawful” unless there is probable cause that the reporter committed certain crimes to which the materials relate. In a prior hearing, Judge Porter asked pointedly, “How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn’t apply?”
Judge Porter ruled that “[a]llowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product — most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources — is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of The Washington Post’s henhouse.”
The court indicated that the search was too broad and was insufficiently protective of the journalistic interests in the case, noting that the government has a “legitimate interest in only an infinitesimal fraction of the data it has seized.”
The court said it would issue new guidelines for reviewing the material. It is a significant victory for the press.
Here is the opinion: IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND PREMISES OF HANNAH NATANSON
Always disappointed when journalists are conflated with the phrase “the Press”; evermore sad when someone as serious as Mr. Turley applies it as well. Newspapers are a business, journalists are earning money in exchange for their work; neither are “the Press”. Press deriving from printing press applies to all. Corruption of words are a cancer on society. They truly believe the First Amendment applies to them specifically.
From what i have read there was a warrant and it was executed. These people are not special no matter how many penumbras they believe are owed them. National security is real, classified items are real as are laws of possession of them. All or none, laws affect.
Magistrate….funny
Two words – Sharyl Attkisson
And ole sharyl never met a secret gov. doc she didn’t like?
This sentence says it all:
“The Justice Department was investigating a Maryland government contractor, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who has been indicted on charges of transmitting and retaining classified national defense information.”
Guys like this are causing leaks that may be innocuous, or may be the last missing key to the castle that China desperately needs. Where does the info go when the recipient is done with it?
My Twitter/X account has ~ 550 likes. Thus, I am journalist now and can stuff a few classified files in my pants and publish them and get – wait for it – even more likes!
There is no standard for “journalist”. An Illegal alien tractor trailer driver gets more scrutiny than a “journalist”.
Journalist. Start with writing skills and some credibility. You fail on both.
It’s heartwarming to see the federal judiciary protective of persons investigated for receipt of classified documents. But wasn’t there a former President whose private residence was invaded without warning, at night, by a SWAT team looking for classified documents (which he had the right to remove from the White House)? I don’t remember many legal commentators complaining about the way he was treated.
This is a win. Source protection is an invaluable asset that truly needs protection. If the Trump administration grabbed everything, what else are they looking at that’s unrelated? What else may be of interest that can be nipped in the bud when it should not be even seen by the administration? In this case, it should cover all sides of the political spectrum because both sides have played games against the press.
The press and media might be biased right now, but it still needs protection. There is a big difference between self immolation and being set on fire by an atogonist.
my buddy makes 0ver $22164💸 a m0nth doing this and she c0nvinced me to try. Single M0m Reveals How She Earns 75k/Yr W0rking 10 Hrs/Week From H0me The p0ssibility with this is endless……..……………..…..…….… https://goto.now/QiHYA
Well don’t get too happy with this ruling – I am sure when a Dem President AOC gets in and a conservative rag like the Washington Examiner gets leaked info the DC Circuit Black Robe Illuminati will have an epiphany that the press needs to be rolled up and jailed because the previous ruling was an error! Sure – because it worked against ORANGE MAN BAD! Can’t trust the partisan DC Circuit with ANYTHING!
A ha, the beginning of a conspiracy theory. You saw it here first, folks.
so when Judges make Obviously illegal rulings… When do they get punished?
Seems LOTS of judges are just extensions of DNC
What is the obvious part?
So, this ruling applies to anyone and everyone who publishes.
Not all al.. The woman is a professional reporter at a internationally recognized news outlet. Credentialed.
The local idiot gadfly spewing stupid is not.
I agree that this woman is a professional reporter. Past that you are going into dangerous waters.
Just a few weeks ago we saw a Youtube journalist blow the lid off hundreds of millions plus in fraud, effectively ending Waltz reelection campaign. Because he isn’t “internationally recognized” does that reduce his protections as a journalist? Does the employer matter or the journalist themselves?
Its murky waters. The protections should apply by default, then it can be disputed. The burden on the person seeking to prove some does not deserve such protections. Free speech is necessary, even when ignorant.
Your response has nothing to do with what anon wrote.
There is a punch line in that comment somewhere!
The same applies to him, lol. “Credentialed”, is that a legal term? LOOLOLOL.
I will applaud this decision only if it is applied equally to all individuals of all political persuasions. This same type of search has been applied to non press individuals in the past with the Federal government saying they had filter teams and decisions seemed to show no consistency when argued in court. Granted the press deserves protection to a degree but so do all individuals.
My standard is simple: apply the statute as written.
Don’t expand it. Don’t shrink it. Don’t creatively reinterpret it to get the result you prefer.
If this ruling faithfully applied the Privacy Protection Act, it deserves applause. If Congress wants broader protections for everyone, that’s their lane.
Apply? You are not a magistrate or a judge. And never was. So your standard is nonexistent. Try harder to be relevant please.
I’m not trying to be a magistrate. I’m trying to be a citizen.
In a republic, we don’t outsource judgment to credentials. We read, we think, and we decide whether institutions are staying in their lane. That’s not irrelevant. That’s self-government.
Citizen of what republic? The one where “We read, we think, and we decide ” Doesn’t sound like the USA.
Don’t outsource… really? Then why does the White House issue credentials?
I know this is a challenge, but take your time. The Constitution is publicly available.
True, you should read it, then setup your own republic.
I’m betting next, that you’ll claim to be its author.
Don’t outsource… really? Then why does the White House issue credentials?
So no response olly? Just a childish deflection.
Go have your mom make you a hot pocket. You are embarrassing yourself.
One point in your comment, the rulings does not take in consideration political affiliation.
Non press individuals? That could be anyone who can write an unintelligible sentence. Is that what you mean?
This is a jersey flip test. If this were a conservative outlet and a Democratic administration, we’d all be screaming about protecting the press.
You can believe national security matters and still believe the government shouldn’t get to police its own search of a reporter’s files.
If a journalist commits a crime, charge them. But don’t let the executive rummage first and justify later. That’s why we have courts.
“If a journalist commits a crime, charge them. ” If they are inviolate, then what? Apply the jersey flip test?
A magistrate judge? With due respect, I thought they only settled disputes at little league baseball games.
Your lack of intelligence and education is showing.
I was wondering the same. AI says… “Jurisdiction” Judges can preside over felony trials and issue final, binding judgments. Magistrates generally limited to misdemeanors, petty offenses, and pretrial motions. “Finality” Judges decisions are final orders subject only to appeal in a higher court. Magistrate often issues “recommendations” that must be signed off by a judge to become final orders.
Did a ‘real’ judge sign-off on this Magistrates decision?
Judicial bias anyone?