ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The federal government is asking a court to “run roughshod” over the First Amendment after seizing electronic devices from a Washington Post reporter's Virginia home last month, an attorney for the newspaper argued Friday.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter didn’t rule from the bench on the newspaper's request for an order requiring authorities to return the devices taken from the Virginia home of Post reporter Hannah Natanson.
Porter had authorized the search by FBI agents investigating allegations that a Pentagon contractor illegally leaked classified information to Natanson.
Porter said he intends to issue a decision before a follow-up hearing scheduled for March 4.
“I have a pretty good sense of what I'm going to do here,” the magistrate said without elaborating.
Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones was arrested on Jan. 8 and charged with unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. Perez-Lugones is accused of taking home printouts of classified documents from his workplace and later passing them to Natanson.
Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin smart watch when they searched Natanson’s home in Alexandria, Virginia, on Jan. 14. Last month, Porter agreed to temporarily bar the government from reviewing any material from Natanson’s devices.
Post attorney Simon Latcovich said the information contained on Natanson’s devices could expose hundreds of confidential sources who routinely provided her with dozens, if not hundreds, of tips every day.
“Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” he said.
If Porter intends to privately review the material contained on Natanson's devices before deciding what can be shown to the government, Latcovich asked him to allow attorneys for the Post and the reporter to see it first so they can argue for keeping at least some of it under wraps.
Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee said the government recognizes that Porter didn't authorize a “fishing expedition.”
“The government does take that seriously,” he said.
The newspaper’s attorneys accused authorities of violating legal safeguards for journalists and trampling on Natanson’s First Amendment free speech rights.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the government is entitled to keep the seized material because it contains evidence in an ongoing investigation with national security implications.
The case has drawn national attention and scrutiny from press freedom advocates who say it reflects a more aggressive posture by the Justice Department toward leak investigations involving journalists.
“There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of,” Latcovich said.
