README: Search and Seizure of the Press
A brief history of actions by the US government involving journalists and their materials.
Author’s note: There’s no shortage of things to have strong opinions about. Reflexive judgment is easy, satisfying, and encouraged by the flood of information at our fingertips. The result is inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst, as we let our feelings about the actor color our judgment of the action. We defend our bad ideas as passionately as the good ones once we’ve taken a stand, and it’s uncomfortable to sit with the unacknowledged suspicion that we might be full of shit.
I write essays because it forces me to slow down and test my hot take by doing research for context and asking whether my opinion would hold up to a turned table. Considered judgment takes time, but it’s the only way I know to make sure my actions consistently reflect my values.
That flood of information I mentioned earlier? Every drop comes wrapped in someone else’s opinion. When something triggers my rush to judgment, I research for context immediately, then think it through by writing. The result is a growing pile of draft essays, because I’m not going to share an opinion until I’m willing to stand by the values it implies.
So I’m trying something different here. In tech, a README is an overview of what’s useful to know before diving in. Pieces like this one share the in-the-moment research I’ve done—ideally facts, as free of framing as I can make them—so I don’t go off half-cocked to do battle with the Internet. It occurred to me that you might find this context helpful too.
Let’s go off fully cocked, or not at all.
When I read about FBI agents searching a Washington Post reporter’s home on Wednesday as part of a leak investigation, I got that looming authoritarianism vibe (again).
Here’s a link to the AP News article. In it, executive editor Matt Murray is quoted as saying “Nonetheless, this extraordinary, aggressive action is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.”
How extraordinary is this collision at the intersection of the First and Fourth Amendments? I looked for cases of search and seizure of the press where the journalist was not suspected of independent criminal wrongdoing—i.e., government action aimed at lawfully obtained information. I was able to find 6 examples in my lifetime (roughly 55 years). The details are interesting.
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (Palo Alto newsroom search, 1971)
Palo Alto police searched the newsroom of The Stanford Daily for photographs identifying protestors who assaulted officers. The newspaper itself was not suspected of wrongdoing; the material was obtained lawfully through reporting. The Supreme Court upheld the search under the Fourth Amendment, holding that probable cause regarding evidence was sufficient even when the target was a newspaper. This decision directly led Congress to pass the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 to prevent similar searches in the future.
Authorizing authority: Local judicial warrant under California state law
Executing authority: Palo Alto Police Department
Relevant executive branch head: California Governor Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Warrant: Yes
Bryan Carmody raid (San Francisco, 2019)
San Francisco police searched Carmody’s home and office to identify a source who leaked a police report. Carmody was acting as a journalist and was not accused of committing the underlying crime. A judge later ordered the seized materials returned, and the city settled with Carmody, acknowledging the raid violated California’s reporter shield laws and the Privacy Protection Act. This case is often cited as a modern analogue to Zurcher, despite the statutory protections now in place.
Authorizing authority: Local judicial warrant under California law
Executing authority: San Francisco Police Department
Relevant executive branch head: California Governor Gavin Newsom (Democrat)
Warrant: Yes
Marion County Record raid (Kansas, 2023)
Local police searched the newsroom and the publisher’s home after the paper legally obtained information about a local official. The journalist was not accused of illegal acquisition. The warrants were withdrawn shortly after execution, a special prosecutor found the searches unlawful, and the city reached a civil settlement. This is one of the clearest post-PPA examples of a newsroom search deemed illegal.
Authorizing authority: Local judicial warrant under Kansas law
Executing authority: Marion Police Department
Relevant executive branch head: Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (Democrat)
Warrant: Yes (later withdrawn; search deemed unlawful)
Associated Press phone-records seizure (2012–2013)
The Department of Justice secretly obtained phone records for more than 20 AP journalists as part of a leak investigation. This did not involve a physical search, but it implicated Fourth Amendment interests in records and triggered major First Amendment backlash. The DOJ later revised its internal policies to limit such actions.
Authorizing authority: U.S. Department of Justice (federal subpoenas and court orders)
Executing authority: Federal prosecutors, telecommunications providers complied
Relevant executive branch head: President Barack Obama (Democrat)
Warrant: No (subpoenas / court orders)
New York Times reporter records seizures (2017–2020; revealed 2021)
The DOJ obtained email metadata and other records from New York Times reporters to identify sources in leak investigations. As with AP, the reporters were not accused of wrongdoing. The actions were lawful under existing procedures but widely criticized as chilling journalism. The Biden DOJ later barred such practices by policy.
Authorizing authority: U.S. Department of Justice (sealed court orders)
Executing authority: Federal prosecutors, service providers complied
Relevant executive branch head: President Donald Trump (Republican)
Warrant: No physical search warrant (records obtained via court orders)
Current incident: FBI search of The Washington Post reporter’s home (January 14, 2026)
Agents seized the reporter’s phone, two laptops, and a smartwatch from her Virginia home under that warrant. Neither the reporter nor The Washington Post is reported to be a target of the investigation itself, which centers on the contractor accused of mishandling classified material.
Authorizing authority (legal basis for search): The search warrant was federal, issued by a U.S. Magistrate Judge based on probable cause that the reporter’s communications and devices contained evidence related to a classified documents investigation tied to a Pentagon contractor.
Executing authority: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents.
Relevant executive branch head: President Donald Trump (Republican)
Warrant: Yes
This research shows that the current Post case is the only modern example where the federal executive branch obtained a physical search warrant to seize a journalist’s personal devices without alleging the journalist committed a crime after the Privacy Protection Act was enacted specifically to prevent this.
The Post case is not just rare; it’s structurally anomalous in the post-PPA era.
I hope this README helps you draw your own conclusions. When I draw mine, there will be an opinionated essay in your inbox.