2026-02-20T21:59:29.777Z / CNN
周五，一名联邦法官猛烈抨击司法部，指责其在今年早些时候请求法官批准搜查《华盛顿邮报》一名记者住所时，未能告知他一项旨在保护记者免受政府搜查和扣押的法律的适用性。
“你们怎么可能忽略这一点？你们怎么会认为它不适用？”治安法官威廉·波特（William Porter）在弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市的听证会上向司法部律师质问道。
“我很难认为这项法律在任何情况下都不适用，”波特随后补充道。
法官在听证会上表示，他曾多次拒绝批准针对记者汉娜·纳坦森（Hannah Natanson）的搜查令，要求获取其相关材料。
“我很难认为这项法律在任何情况下都不适用，”波特随后再次强调。
司法部律师克里斯蒂安·迪布利（Christian Dibblee）辩称，该决定是由其上级部门官员做出的，但他理解法官的“沮丧”情绪。
波特反驳道：“这是在轻描淡写！”
“纳坦森女士基本上已经被剥夺了毕生的工作，”波特在听证会上表示，他呼应了纳坦森律师的说法，称自搜查以来，她无法继续进行报道和收集机密消息来源。
1980年《隐私保护法》旨在保护记者和新闻机构免受政府对记者工作成果材料的搜查和扣押，除非记者本人是刑事调查或起诉的对象。
美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）此前报道称，《华盛顿邮报》记者纳坦森并未受到调查。但她与一名被控非法泄露机密信息的政府承包商的沟通，导致检察官请求波特批准搜查其弗吉尼亚州住所。
上个月，联邦探员突袭了纳坦森的住所，查获了一部手机、两台电脑和一块佳明手表。在纳坦森和《华盛顿邮报》提起诉讼要求返还设备后，波特暂时禁止调查人员检查这些设备。
周五，迪布利和司法部律师戈登·克罗姆伯格（Gordon Kromberg）试图向波特解释，司法部认为该法律在此案中不适用。迪布利一度称，这并非律师在申请此类搜查令时通常需要向法院提出的“不利权威”情况。
“你不认为你们有义务说明这一点吗？”波特一度质问道，“我对这个过程的进展感到有些沮丧。”
据称的泄密者奥雷利奥·路易斯·佩雷斯-卢戈内斯（Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones）上月末对五项非法通过加密通讯应用向纳坦森传递国防信息的指控和一项非法保留国防信息的指控不认罪。
新闻自由倡导者对未披露该法律的行为敲响了警钟，谴责这一决定是对新闻机构关键保护措施的重大侵犯。
“政府在搜查记者住所时似乎忽视了一项关键的新闻自由保障机制，并未向治安法官告知该法律在此案中的适用性，更不用说说明其是否遵守了该法规的大量保护条款，”记者委员会（Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press）政策副总裁加布·罗特曼（Gabe Rottman）本月早些时候表示。
波特正在考虑纳坦森和《华盛顿邮报》的请求，即要求政府返还查获的设备和数据，或建立一个审查大量信息的流程，将与佩雷斯-卢戈内斯案相关的材料与无关材料分离。
他似乎同情记者的观点，即政府在突袭中查获了远超所需的信息，但指出在当今数字世界中，很难轻易区分与搜查令相关的材料和无关材料。
“政府需要所有这些信息做什么？”他一度问道。
迪布利很快承认“收到的信息确实多于搜查令所允许的范围”，这引得法官发出一声嘲讽的笑声。
波特似乎不准备立即下令要求司法部返还所有设备，而是建议法院可以设立一个“筛选小组”，审查数据并确定哪些符合搜查令的范围，哪些需要返还给纳坦森或对政府保密。
他表示将在未来几周内做出裁决。
Judge who allowed FBI to search Washington Post reporter’s home rips into Justice Department
2026-02-20T21:59:29.777Z / CNN
A federal judge ripped into the Justice Department on Friday for failing to inform him of the applicability of a law intended to protect journalists from government searches and seizures when it asked him for permission to raid a Washington Post reporter’s home earlier this year.
“How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn’t apply?” Magistrate Judge William Porter asked a DOJ lawyer during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.
“I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply,” Porter added later.
The judge said during the hearing that he had declined to approve the warrant for materials from reporter Hannah Natanson several other times.
“I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply,” Porter added later.
Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee argued that the decision was made by department officials several rungs above him, but that he understood the judge’s “frustration.”
Porter shot back: “That’s minimizing it!”
“Ms. Natanson has been deprived of basically her life’s work,” Porter said during the hearing, echoing comments from her lawyer that she’s been unable to continue reporting and gathering confidential sources following the raid.
The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is intended to protect journalists and newsrooms from government searches and seizures of a reporter’s work product materials unless the reporter is themself the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution.
CNN has previously reported that the Post reporter, Natanson, is not under investigation. But her communications with a government contractor who was charged with illegally leaking classified information are what led prosecutors to ask Porter to approve a search warrant for her Virginia home.
Last month, federal agents arrived at Natanson’s home and seized a phone, two computers and a Garmin watch were seized. After Natanson and the Post sued in an effort to get the devices back, Porter temporarily blocked investigators from examining them.
Dibblee and DOJ attorney Gordon Kromberg tried to tell Porter on Friday that the department didn’t believe the law was applicable in this case, with Dibblee at one point saying it’s not the kind of “adverse authority” that lawyers are typically required to raise with a court when making requests for such warrants.
“You don’t think you have an obligation to say that?” Porter said at one point. “I’m a little frustrated with how the process went down.”
The alleged leaker, Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, pleaded not guilty late last month to five counts of unlawfully transmitting national defense information to Natanson through an encrypted messaging application and a single count of unlawfully retaining the defense information.
Press freedom advocates have raised alarm bells over the non-disclosure of the law, decrying the decision as a significant assault on key protections for newsrooms.
“The government appears to have ignored a crucial press freedom guardrail in searching a journalist’s home and did not alert the magistrate judge to the law’s application in this case, let alone show how or if it had complied with the statute’s considerable protections,” Gabe Rottman, the vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said earlier this month.
Porter is weighing a request from Natanson and the Post for him to order the government to return the seized devices and data back to them or set up a process through which the massive volume of information can be reviewed and the materials that relate to Perez-Lugones’ can be separated from information that is not relevant to his case.
He appeared sympathetic to the reporter’s argument that the government seized much more than it needed during its raid last month, but noted that in today’s digital world, it’s difficult to easily separate material that is responsive to a search warrant from material that is not.
“What’s the government’s need for all that information?” he asked at one point.
Dibblee quickly conceded “there is more information that was received than what was pursuant to the warrant,” drawing a scoffing laugh from the judge.
Porter didn’t appear ready to issue an order requiring the Justice Department to turn over all the devices, instead suggesting that the court could set up a “filter team” that would look through the data and determine what fit within the parameters of the search warrant and what may need to be returned to Natanson or shielded from the government’s eyes
He said he would rule in the coming weeks.
发表回复