Sure. The warrant application states that the newspaper employee accessed some private government record via online portal, and then shared that record with police and the public. In order to access the record, the newspaper employee must have either impersonated the person whom the record was about (it think it was about a town counselor if memory serves), or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information. It's the same certification I have make as a lawyer when doing a private background check, have to choose one of like fourteen legit reasons for requesting the info; comes from a federal privacy statute. The difference being I have a legit reason to certify when I'm doing a search, and I'm not accessing records directly from the government.

So either the newspaper employee committed identity thef or accessed a closed, government computer system under false pretenses, also known as hacking (unauthorized access).

Those were the two probable crimes set forth in the warrant. There is no journalist exception for crimes.

As I understand, the newspaper owner admitted that their employee falsely certified as to her right of access, but refused to give a statement or provide records.

The same officer who applied for the warrant is also the officer who initially received the document on behalf of the police. He recognized that it implicated the police chief in financial crimes, and referred it to internal affairs.

The only wrongdoing I could see is the appearance of conflict of interest, in that the department or prosecutor should have referred the matter to state law enforcement or law enforcement in a different county.

I don't like police raiding reporters in any sense, and that's what prompted me to read the warrant application, but after reading it I understand why the police, prosecutor, and judge all signed off on it. It seems legit.