Court Considers Return of Devices Seized from Washington Post Reporter’s Home

A federal judge is weighing whether to order the return of electronic equipment taken from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Alexandria home during an FBI search. The seizure occurred as part of an investigation into alleged classified information leaks from a Pentagon contractor.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal magistrate is deliberating whether to force authorities to give back electronic equipment confiscated from a Washington Post journalist’s Northern Virginia residence during a search last month.

During Friday’s court proceedings, legal representatives for the newspaper contended that federal officials are trampling on First Amendment protections after taking devices from reporter Hannah Natanson’s Alexandria home. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter had previously approved the FBI search as part of a probe into suspected illegal sharing of classified materials with Natanson by a Pentagon contractor.

Porter declined to make an immediate ruling on the Post’s motion demanding return of the seized equipment, stating he plans to announce his decision prior to a scheduled follow-up session on March 4.

“I have a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here,” the magistrate said without elaborating.

The investigation centers on Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was taken into custody January 8 on charges of improperly removing and keeping classified documents. Authorities allege Perez-Lugones brought home printed classified materials from his job and subsequently shared them with Natanson.

During the January 14 search of Natanson’s Alexandria residence, federal agents confiscated a mobile phone, two laptop computers, a recording device, a portable hard drive and a Garmin smartwatch. Porter previously agreed to temporarily prevent the government from examining any content from the reporter’s devices.

Attorney Simon Latcovich, representing the Post, explained that material stored on Natanson’s equipment could reveal hundreds of confidential sources who regularly supplied her with numerous tips daily.

“Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” he said.

Should Porter decide to conduct a private examination of the device contents before determining what the government can access, Latcovich requested that Post and reporter attorneys be permitted to review the material first to argue for protecting certain information.

Justice Department lawyer Christian Dibblee acknowledged that the government understands Porter didn’t approve a “fishing expedition.”

“The government does take that seriously,” he said.

The newspaper’s legal team accused authorities of breaking legal protections for journalists and violating Natanson’s First Amendment free speech guarantees.

Government prosecutors maintained they have the right to retain the confiscated materials because they contain evidence relevant to an active investigation involving national security concerns.

The situation has attracted nationwide attention and criticism from press freedom organizations who view it as evidence of increased Justice Department aggressiveness in leak investigations targeting journalists.

“There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of,” Latcovich said.