Signing you in

That embarrassing episode adds a ridiculous wrinkle to a case that seemed dubious to begin with. The indictment stems from an obnoxious protest that opponents of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown staged at Cities Church in St. Paul on January 18. They targeted that church because one of its pastors, David Easterwood, was a supervisor at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in St. Paul.

Gerber's unsuccessful warrant applications, which cast doubt on the competence and legal knowledge of DHS investigators, raise further questions about this case. "None of the five applications establish probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the places to be searched," U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty wrote in a February 24 order. He added that "all of the warrant applications improperly refer the Court to material outside the search warrant application itself." And although Gerber had asked that the applications be kept under seal, Docherty noted, the government had not filed "a motion to seal" or "a proposed order."

In each application, Gerber aimed to establish probable cause by referring Docherty to the allegations in the January 29 indictment against Lemon et al., which he said were "incorporated by reference." But "search warrants are required to be self-contained wholes, capable of being evaluated on 'the four corners' of the application," Docherty noted. "A direction that the reader go look up some other document and review it for probable cause is improper, and the Court would be justified in stopping its probable cause analysis at this point."

Docherty nevertheless looked at the indictment "in order to be thorough." He still "found no facts at all that support probable cause."

One of the applications sought a warrant that would compel Google to produce information about Lemon's YouTube channel. Although the indictment mentions Lemon's show, Docherty noted, it says nothing about YouTube. He also perceived a more serious problem.

Gerber did slightly better in a third application for a YouTube warrant, noting the titles of two videos that were posted by "DaWoke Farmer" on January 28. "It seems from context that the government alleges that YouTube channel 'DaWoke Farmer' is connected somehow to defendant Ian Kelly," Docherty wrote. "The trouble is that nowhere in the affidavit, and nowhere in the indictment, is there even an attempt to connect Mr. Kelly to 'DaWoke Farmer.'"

The YouTube content that Gerber described "appears to be paradigmatic political speech protected by the First Amendment," Docherty said. "Today we had the honor of protesting David Easterwood's church with Nekima Armstrong!" the title of one video said, referring to the main organizer, who is also named in the indictment. The other video was titled "No Rest for Demons!" DaWoke Farmer added that "if you support Kristi Noem [the DHS secretary at the time] you are a demon!" While such speech may be "rude" and "disrespectful," Docherty said, the titles of the videos (the only information about them in the affidavit) provided "nothing from which the Court can find" that YouTube records about the account are "likely to contain evidence" of a crime.

Gerber also sought information about two iPhone accounts. Although he provided numbers that he said were associated with Armstrong and another defendant, Ian Austin, he did not explain how he knew that. Nor did he provide sufficient reason to believe that the iPhone records would contain evidence of a crime.

"The affidavit states, in conclusory fashion, that 'ARMSTRONG used the SUBJECT DEVICE to communicate with co-conspirators,'" Docherty noted, but it "provides nothing more, such as who she communicated with, when, or, most importantly, how the government knows this number goes with this phone." Docherty also questioned the breadth of the information that Gerber wanted about the account he identified as Austin's: "App store logs? iTunes store records? Records of web-based access to Apple services? If any of this is remotely relevant, the government has not explained how."

Docherty nevertheless saw another potential problem with those three applications. He noted that the Privacy Protection Act says a government employee investigating or prosecuting a criminal offense may not "search for or seize" work product or documentary materials "possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication."

If Lemon, Fort, and Kelly "do not possess the materials sought, but YouTube does," Docherty wrote, "then (a) the exception to the proscription on searches does not apply because there is not probable cause to believe that YouTube committed the crimes being prosecuted but (b) the Privacy Protection Act might not apply because YouTube also is not a person who is preparing a broadcast." He noted that the government "has not provided any guidance on this point, preferring to stay silent on the entire question of the applicability of the Privacy Protection Act."

There was "no indication that negotiations with these defendants occurred, and the applications are not narrowly drawn," Docherty noted. "There is no indication that the defendants were 'given reasonable and timely notice' of the impending warrant." He added that "the Court will benefit from adversarial briefing and argument on these issues." In the meantime, he said, "the Court cannot foresee any harm that will come from advising the defendants that these three warrants have been applied for."

Docherty also revisited the proposed warrant for Austin's telephone records. "There is no indication in the affidavit that Mr. Austin was seen using his phone to take photographs or videos while at Cities Church, no allegation that any such photographs or videos have turned up on social media, and no indication that Mr. Austin used his phone to communicate, via voice, email, or text, with other defendants," he wrote. "The application, in short, does not come close to establishing a nexus between the crime charged and the telephone records whose seizure is sought; therefore probable cause is lacking."

On March 26, the government told Docherty it was withdrawing its warrant applications. "Other options were available," the government's lawyers conceded in a May 15 brief that was primarily devoted to arguing that the Privacy Protection Act does not apply in this case. They added that "the subject data was of limited value, and, in retrospect, the list of items to be seized did warrant some tailoring."

Those admissions, like Gerber's apparent incomprehension of probable cause, do not reflect well on the government's care in pursuing this case. When prosecutors have "other options" that do not involve scrutinizing journalistic activity, they should use them, especially when the information they are seeking has "limited value" in making their case. And it should go without saying that "tailoring" of warrant applications is necessary to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books).

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.