343
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Searching Data Seized During Raid on Reporter's Home
(www.commondreams.org)
Good thing I totally trust the DOJ to follow court orders.
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
343 points (99.4% liked)
News
37008 readers
1698 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In this case they would have to as there would be no way to hide that they accessed the data without a warrant and also the material would be rendered inadmissible and whoever the DOJ was hoping to jail gets to walk away free
IT guy here, unless the computer case was sealed, they could pop the drive and use it to make a disk image or simply clone it to another drive, the only way I can see how that could be detected is if you have a log of how many hours it has been powered on and compare it to the drives log.
The point is, none of that data can be used as evidence. If the DOJ presents any evidence that could only have come from that drive (cloned or otherwise) their entire case goes out the window and they get in trouble. Though with the way consequences are being ignored lately I doubt that's their main concern.
They can always use parallel construction
Same issue. It’s called chain of evidence, something that is required for evidence to be admissible.
No matter what solution one can come up with the origin of the evidence is needed
Parallel construction is a tactic that is used specifically in situations similar to this, in the interest of hiding illegal evidence usage by investigators (amongst other things)
They present a viable way they found that evidence. They've been doing this since forever, using illegal information, then constructing a plausible case for how they found it legally for the courts, which only matters if the accused has good lawyers in the first place.
And even that would require a software layer log that wouldn't kick in until the software is fully booted. There would have to be a hardware layer controller logging spin up via firmware for that to work.
If they threw this into a cloaner, there's really no way to tell.
But they wouldn't even need to do all that, they would just shop around for a trump appointment judge in a nearby district, and then convince them to retroactively rubber stamp a warrant based on some flimsy probable cause, exactly like the Patriot Act was written for. No need to parallel construct.
Oh no! What would happen to them if they were caught?
The material is declared inadmissible and whoever they are prosecuting gets to walk free
Assuming the courts actually follow their own rules, which depending on the judge is a crapshoot now. And if it got there through appeals, the SC is just as likely to allow because they're complicit.
Also, they'll still have to data to do whatever the fuck else they want to with it. Like going after others.
Exactly, getting the data was the point, discovering who was talking was the point. They can construct ways to find them and prosecute them from there.
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.
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".
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.)
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.
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
I don't believe that would happen
If caught they could be on the receiving end of a rebuke from the judge. I know, pretty serious blow to their feelings but sometimes harsh measures are neccessary.
How do you figure that? They already would've accessed it, and they are looking for who is talking first, they can find evidence elsewhere if this is disallowed. And they could absolutely violate this without the court knowing, not the least as the court is working on the honor system with these cops.
I figured that because that’s literally how evidence works.
For the evidence to be viable the chain of who had it and where is needed.
One of the first questions to be brought up is where did this evidence first originate.
And if the data was accessed via the phone the courts already said no you can’t access than that makes the data inadmissible and in all likelihood has the defense walking free.
As for finding different evidence elsewhere you are correct and that’s is what will have to happen, something the Trump DOJ would hate because to them they already had what they needed.
You seem to be under the impression that the prosecution would admit they got the data from there in the first place. They wouldn't. Police and prosecutors lie and judges let them, no longer the neutral arbiters of dispute but the hammer of (in)justice.
They do this all the time, as others reminded me the term for it is parallel construction, and they almost always get away with it. This information is classified so it's not like even if you suspected they found the information there you could subpoena it and prove it. If you could prove they had access to it there they would claim they didn't notice it and there case came about in another way.
And if both of those arguments failed, judges might just let it through anyway on a decades old (unconstitutional) scotus precedent that says if authorities acted in good faith fruit from the poisoned tree can be used. ;
You really don't know how bad the courts are, most people don't. No one makes a big deal out of it so how would you know, unless you were sensitized to it first seeing firsthand them abuse their power.
Because they would have to. Any lie or failure to establish where they got the data makes it inadmissible evidence.
Yes this parallel construction was brought up but given how rather public this story is it’s going to raise brows and be asked about its origins
But as I said you wouldn't be able to prove they got it in that raid. You wouldn't be able to subpoena the information from that raid to prove they found it then at all. And even if you could, that precedent allows them to use it anyway.
I know it's supposed to work the way you are talking about, but it doesn't anymore. For a very small number of people does it work the way it's supposed to, and that was before this administration went mask off.
Indeed but at the same time the DOJ needs to show that the source was indeed not the raid.
“The origin is the department records office.”
“How did it get in the records office.”
“We stored it after a different raid that was found illegal.”
And even mask off it’s still “works for the small number of people.”
The masks are off but the system is still the system
there would be no way to hide that they accessed the data
How on earth do you even detect that a drive has been accessed? What is there to hide?
I think what he's saying is, even if they do access it, they can't ever bring any of that info into a court anywhere without admitting they accessed it.
They can only use information they obtain illegally from this data that has some kind of parallel construction from another source.
Yeah if the data was from a source that the courts considered legal then it would then be viable
Always ironic when they complain about others not following orders.
Well, they can try and put it in as evidence somewhere, but no judge would ever accept it after this
Narrator: And they searched the data anyway.
I would be highly surprised if they haven't yet cloned the drive
Send these criminals to the hauge
As if they would not have already copied everything on those drives that was days ago. As if they wouldn't copy it anyway and lie about it.
This judge, magistrate whatever should've never betrayed the 1st amendment with that warrant in the first place, now is covering for his betrayal with this order that makes it look like he's balancing the 1st amendment and pretends like they don't already have the information.