As I understood it, the first amendment has been hedged to protect what papers can publish. But it does not protect how or where they get the information. The result is that courts and the police both can and will raid offices, seize materials etc. The only protections against this are (a) getting it published before you're raided and (b) whatever respect for the spirit of the constitution you can inspire in judges or maybe lawmakers to try and codify these things.
Is that wrong?
I am asking here about the actual interpretation of the law, not the "ideal world" scenario...
This is the best case I could find: