Gizmodo points out that the warrant was invalid because it violated section 1524(g) of the California State Penal Code:
(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.
Section 1070 of the Evidence Code reads:
(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
I am not a lawyer, but I would point out that even though the description of evidence to be seized was extremely vague, the cops can seize the items on it, since the warrant was not specifically for the items mentioned in 1070. If the computer media contains such items, they are not admissible as evidence in a trial. Other data, such as proof of a felony (the reason for the warrant), should be, IMO.
That seems to apply to undisclosed information or refusing to disclose sources. Neither of those apply to this case, presumably since it is about stolen goods or disclosure of trade secrets. Gizmodo is grasping for straws here.
(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.
Section 1070 of the Evidence Code reads:
(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
I am not a lawyer, but I would point out that even though the description of evidence to be seized was extremely vague, the cops can seize the items on it, since the warrant was not specifically for the items mentioned in 1070. If the computer media contains such items, they are not admissible as evidence in a trial. Other data, such as proof of a felony (the reason for the warrant), should be, IMO.