RICHMOND, Va. — The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the newly unsealed justification for a search warrant targeting Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson ignored what it described as a “crucial freedom guardrail,” raising serious concerns about federal compliance with longstanding protections for journalists.
According to a statement by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the newly unsealed justification for a search warrant reportedly ignored the “crucial freedom guardrail.” The case involved Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, whose home was searched under an affidavit to gather information on an ongoing investigation to which she was not the target.
According to the statement, “The material seized holds a vast amount of Natanson’s work and other sensitive newsgathering information, including material that could potentially identify confidential sources unconnected to the underlying investigation of Aurelio Perez-Lugones.” The investigation concerns a government contractor accused of illegally retaining and sharing national security materials.
RCFP reportedly filed an application to unseal the records with the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia. They wanted to make public the reasoning behind the search warrant and why it was justified.
According to RCFP Vice President Gabe Rottman, the affidavit did not “reference the federal law that prohibits, with few exceptions, raids targeting journalists or newsrooms to seize unpublished work.” Additionally, the government “did not alert the magistrate judge to the law’s application in this case, let alone show how or if it had complied with the statute’s considerable protections.”
RCFP argues the search violated the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which protected journalists from government searches and seizures. The purpose of the law was to protect journalists from having to turn over work products to the government before it is released to the public.
As stated by the Justice Department, the PPA law explains: “Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials, possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”
The PPA was enacted in response to Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, a case involving a warranted search by police of the Stanford Daily newsroom. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, “That case arose when police conducted a warranted search of the Stanford Daily’s newsroom seeking photos of a demonstration at which officers were injured.” The newsroom staff had published a story with photographs of the demonstration, and the police sought to seize the unpublished photos to identify and launch investigations into protesters.
The federal district court concluded that the search in Zurcher was unlawful, arguing the Fourth Amendment must be interpreted in light of the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that neither amendment prohibited the search, according to EPIC. Two years after this ruling, “Congress passed the federal PPA in order to overrule Zurcher and recognize the need of journalists to gather and disseminate the news without fear of government interference.”
RCFP explains the affidavit alleged that the Post published several articles containing classified information that the defendant is accused of sharing. Perez-Lugones was surveilled for a month without ever meeting with Natanson in person. Authorities instead alleged that he electronically transmitted the information to Natanson due to the lack of evidence of in-person meetings.
The search warrant called for the seizure of Natanson’s personal devices, potentially jeopardizing her work. RCFP reports that the justification for the warrant was that her devices likely contained classified information, and “‘is evidence of Perez-Lugones’s crimes and which, if disclosed, could harm national security.’”
RCFP argues the search and seizure were both unlawful due to Natanson’s protections under the PPA. They have also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief demanding a return of her property. The federal judge has yet to reach a decision on whether the search was unlawful or whether the property can be returned.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Very troublesome. We get closer and closer to George Orwell with each passing day.
I’m not sure which is more troubling (1) the Justice Department’s willful circumvention of the law, or (2) the judge’s ignorance of the law in granting the search warrant.