The judge therefore ordered that the previous situation be maintained, until the court has fully examined the case. The government is allowed to remain in possession of the confiscated devices for the time being, but is prevented from accessing the data stored on them until further notice. According to the Washington Post, he also gave the government a deadline of January 28th to respond and announced a hearing at the beginning of February.
Precedent for freedom of the press in the USA
Officers from the US Federal Police FBI searched Natanson’s apartment in mid-January and confiscated, among other things, a cell phone, two laptops, an audio recorder, an external hard drive and a smart watch. The measure is in Related to an investigation into a government contractor from the state of Maryland, who is suspected, according to the search warrant, took intelligence reports home without permission and passed them on.
The judge’s decision was made just a few hours after the Washington Post took legal action against the search was. In an application, the newspaper demanded that the devices be returned immediately and their use prohibited. The newspaper argued that the action violated the law enshrined in the US Constitution Freedom of the press and disregards special legal protection ruleswhich are intended to protect journalists from state coercive measures.
According to the Washington Post, the seized devices are about years of journalistic work materials, including contacts with confidential sources and unpublished research. Almost none of the information stored is related to the search warrant, the newspaper says. On the other hand, the confiscation has a deterrent effect on informants and effectively paralyzes the reporter’s journalistic work.
The media and associations see a historic turning point
Media rights activists and press freedom organizations emphasized in the US media that this was the case first known case, in which investigators searched the apartment of a reporter in the USA as part of a national security investigation.
The US government initially did not comment on the court order. As soon as the search became known, the Ministry of Justice defended the action on the grounds of national security and emphasized that the investigation was not directed against the journalist herself. (sda/dpa)