Published September 29, 2026 at 2:46 PM ET · Updated September 29, 2026 at 10:15 PM ET
Jack Smith gathered reporters' phone data in Trump probe
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by Washington Post. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A report says special counsel Jack Smith collected reporters' phone data during his probe of Donald Trump, an act critics described as a massive First Amendment breach. Smith also clashed with senators over the Trump investigations and said he will not be silenced.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Washington Post reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 1 d ago from Daily Signal.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Whether gathering reporters' phone data was a Fourth Amendment search turns on what was collected. Smith v. Maryland held that dialed numbers are not protected because callers voluntarily convey them to the phone company, so no warrant is needed. Carpenter v. United States held that acquiring historical location records from carriers is a search, given their depth and comprehensive reach.
Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
Vote: 5-3 · Opinion: Blackmun
Installation and use of a pen register at the phone company's offices to record the numbers dialed from Smith's home phone was not a Fourth Amendment search, so no warrant was required. A telephone user has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dials because he voluntarily conveys that information to the phone company and 'assumes the risk' that the company will reveal it to the government.
Carpenter v. United States 585 U.S. 296 (2018)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Roberts (C.J.)
The government's warrantless acquisition of 127 days of historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from Carpenter's wireless carriers — obtained with a Stored Communications Act §2703(d) order on less than probable cause — was a Fourth Amendment search. Given CSLI's 'depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach' and the 'inescapable and automatic' nature of its collection, the third-party doctrine of Smith and Miller does not extend to it; individuals maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
