You're wrong. You must have a reasonable expectation that your warrant will lead to evidence that will lead to a conviction. That's the whole point of justify

You're wrong. You must have a reasonable expectation that your warrant will lead to evidence that will lead to a conviction. That's the whole point of justifying a warrant to a judge. You can't say "we want a warrant because this person might be guilty of some crime". There has to be a specific crime you are investigating. What that means is that the D.A. should already think Gizmodo is guilty of theft before they raid a house looking for evidence of that theft. But they already had plenty of evidence of theft in the form of a public confession. So if they already believed that then there was no reason not to charge them. The fact that neither Chen nor anyone from Gizmodo has been charged with theft leads me to believe the warrant was unjustified regardless of the shield laws.