A federal judge has, for now, barred the Justice Department from searching the electronic devices of a Washington Post reporter that were seized by the FBI last month, ruling instead that the court will conduct its own review of the materials.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter of Virginia wrote in a decision late Tuesday that the court “will conduct an independent judicial review of the seized materials,” rejecting the government’s request to allow a DOJ filter team to examine the devices for evidence tied to a classified-leaks investigation.
The FBI on Jan. 14 seized reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptops, Garmin watch, and portable hard drives as part of an investigation into a government contractor who was later charged with disseminating classified information. The seizure drew sharp criticism from press freedom advocates, who warned it could chill confidential sourcing.
Porter, who previously blocked the FBI from searching Natanson’s devices, wrote that allowing government attorneys to screen the materials themselves would be akin to “leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” citing concerns that mistakes or institutional bias could jeopardize press freedoms.
At the same time, the judge declined the Washington Post’s request to immediately return Natanson’s devices, noting that the case involves “top secret national security information” that must be safeguarded before any materials can be released back to her. A decision on whether the devices can be returned to the reporter will be “reserved for future proceedings,” the judge wrote.
“No easy remedy exists here,” Porter said, adding that the seizure effectively cut Natanson off from her reporting tools and confidential sources. He called the government’s suggestion that she simply replace her devices and start over “unjust and unreasonable.”
FBI SEARCHES WASHINGTON POST REPORTER’S HOME
Porter also faulted prosecutors for failing to reference the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 in their warrant application, a law that limits the government’s ability to seize journalists’ work product when the reporter is not suspected of wrongdoing. The omission, he wrote, “seriously undermined the Court’s confidence” in the government’s disclosures.
DOJ has defended the search as lawful and necessary to investigate a damaging leak, arguing that the First Amendment does not create “a journalist’s exception to search warrants.”