It sounds like more than just a public records search, someone sent them information about her DUI:
> Newell said she believes the newspaper violated the law to get her personal information as it checked on the status of her driver’s license after a 2008 drunken driving conviction and other driving violations.
> The newspaper countered that it received that information unsolicited, which it verified through public online records. It eventually decided to not run a story because it wasn’t sure the source who supplied it had obtained it legally. But the newspaper did run a story on the city council meeting, in which Newell confirmed that she’d had a DUI conviction and that she had continued to drive even after her license was suspended.
I also read that the source who sent the information about Newell bragged about retaining "connections" in law enforcement, a hint that it might have been non-public information. There's also "dozens" of anonymous tips about the police chief's sexual harassment issues.
However, I'm not sure "verifying a rumor via public records" is what the various "using a computer to do crimes" laws are about, especially because my understanding of various public records and registry searches are precisely to allow the public to verify these kinds of rumors.
Reading between the lines, it seems that they were most interested in unmasking the identities of these anonymous sources and sending a message to the newspaper.
It's in quotes because that's the allegation made as probable cause for the warrant. So, the article is correct, but the allegation is preposterous and big reason that everyone is inferring the entire operation was retribution and abuse of power.
Are there any details about those allegations? I'd be interested to see what the warrant gave as cause. We seem to be jumping to the conclusion that these journalists are innocent.
When you take literally everything that isn't nailed down from a journalism business that needs its resources to operate, it's not really jumping to conclusions to determine what kind of action this is. This is an action to squash the article and attempt to drive the paper out of business.