To be fair to the journalist(s), it could be a budgetary issue. It’s a small town, and their 98-year-old mother was living with them.
Sure, I suppose I could see that. But… it is difficult to imagine the cops would know they use personal devices for work like that. They almost literally took everything that could hold data, receive communications and maybe nark. if those devices were covered under the warrant (which must specifically state what’s to be seized- new things they want to seize requires a new warrant) then the warrant was probably over-broad and itself subject to scrutiny.
Keep in mind, that they need to enumerate specific items- and specifically where they are to be found. “Any devices found at xyz premises” is much too broad. And they have to show a reason why they believe that it contains evidence of wrong doing.
side note… it’s difficult to imagine that the story on the restaurant owner couldn’t have been obtained without using confidential data. Arrest records and convictions are public. and all it would take is camping out on a public street to prove she was still driving.