A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter’s electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an “unconstitutional and illegal” raid last week.

US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home—ruled that “the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued.”

The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post’s initial legal filings against the agent’s actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.

  • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Erm in this case they would. Yes the Trump administration has had a lot of leeway but the Judicial system is not a full on rubber stamp just yet.

    And as for the Supreme Court no they actually won’t because the plain text is rather clear. You need a warrant to collect evidence.

    “Have a warrant for the phone and whatever is on it? If not sorry per the explicit saying of the constitution it is inadmissible.”

    And those others also getting released as it relied on warentless material.

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      because the plain text is rather clear

      So is the 2nd amendment, that hasn’t stopped them even before the modern political climate. The entire text is a single sentence, explicitly in reference to a regulated militia. That doesn’t stop them from saying it means everyone and their fucking dog.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

      • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Given who is in power now the whole “it gives you the constitutional right to a fire arm.” Might want to be reconsidered.

        (To be clear not saying Charlie Kirk’s “mass shootings is an acceptable thing to keep our guns.” Logic is still absolutely BS. It’s just with the State on the Federal level and in every Republican controlled state turning to Facisim at a rapid pace a community defense that is armed is looking rather valuable to have.)

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Totally agree. They wanted to insist we can be armed, so we will.

          A reminder that the California gun control stuff really kicked off in the 1960s when Reagan, with NRA support, passed gun control laws in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves to monitor the cops. And the Black Panthers have started showing up in Minnesota. History loves to repeat itself.

          • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            And funny enough it’s a conservative supreme court who align with Reagan created that BS “historical tradition.” Rule has resulted in those laws being called unconstitutional