US prosecutors decline to clarify whether Don Lemon's phone records were secretly obtained
Federal prosecutors have not answered whether they secretly gathered Don Lemon's phone records through an administrative summons, his lawyers said in a court filing. The case stems from a January protest at a St. Paul church and has raised concerns about government surveillance of journalists.
In a Monday court filing, lawyers for journalist Don Lemon said federal prosecutors have not said whether they secretly requested his phone logs through an administrative summons. The request was part of a wider criminal case connected to a January protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
According to the filing, officials served Verizon in January with an administrative summons for Lemon's phone records covering Dec. 19 to Jan. 20. Unlike an ordinary grand jury subpoena or a court-approved warrant, the demand was made unilaterally by the Department of Homeland Security under Section 1509 of Title 19 of the U.S. Code. That provision grants DHS authority related to customs investigations. Legal experts cited by lawyers argue the government has been stretching the law to obtain data on journalists, activists, unions, nonprofits and online critics, raising Fourth Amendment privacy concerns.
The court records do not make clear whether Verizon supplied the data, Lemon's lawyers wrote. They said they asked prosecutors on Friday for clarification but had no answer by Monday. The Justice Department declined to comment; Verizon and DHS did not respond to requests for comment.
Lemon was charged in January with conspiracy to violate federal laws that protect religious expression after he reported on the protest. Activists at the demonstration said the church's pastor was an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. A similar administrative summons was used against independent journalist Georgia Fort, who also covered the protest and was charged. Her lawyers said last month they were "stunned" to learn the government had obtained six months of her T-Mobile records without giving her advance notice or a chance to challenge the request.
Unlike grand jury subpoenas, a Section 1509 summons does not require a company to comply; the government can be forced to go to court. Defense lawyers noted that a magistrate judge earlier rejected a separate request for YouTube records belonging to Lemon and Fort, saying special protections apply when reporters' data are sought and that journalists should have an opportunity to object.
The filing came as nearly all defendants in the case asked the court to dismiss charges. In a joint motion, they said the government had issued more than 90 administrative summonses for phone, airline, social media, car rental and employment records, and they argued DHS lacked legal authority to investigate the case. Prosecutors, however, have maintained that the summonses are proper because the former Customs Service was folded into DHS and because the incident allegedly involved a potential crime against a DHS official. Defendants countered that the customs-related powers remain limited and that the agency's reorganization did not expand their scope.
