The EFF still feels the warrant was definitely improper, now that they've seen the whole thing (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/iphone-warrant-affidavi...) citing section 1524(g) of the CA penal code, which says no warrants can be issued for [unpublished information obtained/prepared by a journalist].
I am not so sure about this legal theory. Courts have upheld judgments against CA journalists for engaging in actual criminal activity. Also, attorney privilege, which considerably exceeds that of reporters, falls in a case where there is probable to cause to believe an attorney obtained information by committing a crime (CPC 1524(h)). So, debatable.
I have been a longtime supporter of the EFF but I think they should stay out of this. The knee-jerk response related to journalistic privilege seems incorrect and as time goes on it is becoming very clear crimes were committed.
Agreed, and I emailed the attorney who wrote that piece and told him as much. That affidavit reads like a Coen Brothers screenplay, and I don't see any room for EFF to defend anyone involved in the whole sordid affair. (Except maybe the roommate who tried to talk Hogan out of selling the phone.)
I am not so sure about this legal theory. Courts have upheld judgments against CA journalists for engaging in actual criminal activity. Also, attorney privilege, which considerably exceeds that of reporters, falls in a case where there is probable to cause to believe an attorney obtained information by committing a crime (CPC 1524(h)). So, debatable.