THE SEARCH OF THE OFFICES OF THE STANFORD DAILY BY POLICE OFFICERS WITH A VALID SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A PRIOR RESTRAINT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY (1978) DISTINGUISHED TEMPORARY SEIZURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE, FROM SEIZURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMANENT CONFISCATION OF MATERIALS, AND HELD THAT THE FORMER IS LAWFUL IN THE ZURCHER CIRCUMSTANCES. BESIDES BEING DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND HOW THE SEIZING OF A JOURNALIST'S WORK PRODUCT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A PRIOR RESTRAINT, IT IS HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT THE POLICE WOULD CAREFULLY EXPLAIN A NEWSPAPER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING THE EX PARTE HEARING PERMITTED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THUS, THE ABSENCE OF GUIDELINES FOR MAGISTRATES WHO MUST BALANCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE PRESS AND PROTECTION FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURES, WITH THE POLICE INTERESTS, MAKES THE PROCESS UNWORKABLE. THE EXPANSION OF POLICE POWER IN THE ZURCHER CASE SHATTERS THE PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES. THE FEAR OF POLICE SEARCHES OF NEWSPAPERS WILL DETER SOURCES OF INFORMATION FROM CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESS. WITH THE LOSS OF CONFIDENTIALITY VITAL CHANNELS OF INFORMATION WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PRESS. ARBITRARY SEARCHES OF NEWS GATHERING ORGANIZATIONS WILL CREATE A DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN THE AREA OF POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS. LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED HEARINGS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE SHIELD LAWS TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES ARE RECOMMENDED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).