>[the court] said, in this particular case involving a deliberately non-confidential source, the “state’s interest in the investigation and prosecution of crime outweighed the media’s right to privacy in gathering and disseminating the news.”<p>seems reasonable to me. if you're talking to a reporter and don't want the government seizing their notes, do it confidentially.
What are the legal consequences if the records have been destroyed? And the reporter will answer any questions, but there are no notes, files, recordings, etc? Surely "contempt of court" isn't a life sentence?