Congress in 1980 maintained the ability of the free press to do its job when it passed the Privacy Protection Act in response to a Supreme Court ruling.

Local police raided the Stanford University student newspaper in 1971 in search of photographs the paper had published of a student protest at which a police officer was injured. The paper sued, arguing that it was a third party and that its staff had committed no crime in covering news. But the high court ruled in 1978 that third parties were subject to search warrants for such information.

The Privacy Protection Act requires police to seek such information with subpoenas, which news organizations can challenge in court, rather than surprise warrants.

Yet police in Marion, Kansas, descended on a small weekly newspaper Friday with a search warrant alleging identity theft and illegal use of a computer. They seized computers and cellphones and also searched the home of the Marion County Record’s owner, Erica Meyer, seizing his computer, WiFi router and cellphone. His 98-year-old mother, the paper’s co-owner, died suddenly the next day.

Local business owner Kari Newell claimed the paper had invaded her privacy regarding her driving record. The paper had received unsolicited information about her record, verified it through online public documents, but decided not to publish a story.

The raid clearly was unwarranted and serves only to chill the free press. Federal authorities should investigate the violation of federal law in the name of deterrence and preserving the free press.

— Tribune News Service