zlacker

>>_delir+(OP)
Am I missing something? There's no [federal] shield law protecting journalists in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat...

"There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-law...

"There is no federal shield law"

Not even former or sitting presidents are protected.

>>backen+a5
I believe you are correct. The article cites 42 USC 2000aa but that doesn't apply in cases of criminal investigation tied to those articles if my non-lawyer understanding is correct, since it's only necessary that the things seized are tied to a crime (whether they are tied to a real crime or just being awkward for someone in power is of course it's own fight in court).

>>vorpal+O5
The materials seized from journalists need to be tied to a crime committed by the journalists rather than a third party, and the crime cannot merely be one of having or receiving the materials/information:

> may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein

(followed by exceptions for national defense and child pornography)

It seems unlikely that the police presented evidence the journalists were perpetrating identity theft, or evidence that the journalists obtained their information through computer hacking rather than receiving it from their confidential source. If the suspect for those crimes was the confidential source rather than the journalists, then the journalists and their work products would be protected by this law.