Sure, though the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect.

The issue here is the American tradition of a free press and the legitimate role of leaks in a free country. The PBS article is a bit better on context:

> The Justice Department over the years has developed, and revised, internal guidelines governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

> In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidelines saying prosecutors would again have the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make "unauthorized disclosures" to journalists.

> The moves rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fbi-searched-home-of-w...

My understanding is that searches of journalists still must be signed off on by the AG personally.

▲

TimTheTinker 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect.

If that's true, it's a direct violation of the fourth amendment. I'll paste it here for convenience:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

	▲	yorwba 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That includes an explicit carve-out for reasonable searches. And given "innocent until proven guilty" any search is technically targeting innocent people in hopes of yielding information about a suspect. Sometimes that's a reasonable thing to do.
	▲	AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well, "routinely" should have been interpreted to mean "routinely, after showing probable cause and obtaining a warrant". Law enforcement obtains warrants for that routinely, that is, it's not an exceptional case for them to do so.
	▲	rolph 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		there are some places where no one should go skulking around, no matter what the problem might be. if someone goes snooping around my 1000yd backstop without signing in at the range house, they are suicidal. there is a lot of signage, and curtailage, and a darwin prize
	▲	eli 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		They get a warrant
	▲	dingnuts 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]