SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES <--- Court
No. 98--83 <----- Docket Number
CHARLES H. WILSON, et ux., et al., PETITIONERS <---Appellants
v.
HARRY LAYNE, DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL, etc., et al. <----Respondents
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT <-- Appeal Procedure Type and the Name of the Court Appealed From
[May 24, 1999] <---- Date of the Decision
Text of the Syllabus ----> While executing a warrant to arrest petitioners' son in their home, respondents, deputy federal marshals and local sheriff's deputies, invited a newspaper reporter and a photographer to accompany them. The warrant made no mention of such a media "ride-along." The officers' early morning entry into the home prompted a confrontation with petitioners, and a protective sweep revealed that the son was not in the house. The reporters observed and photographed the incident but were not involved in the execution of the warrant. Their newspaper never published the photographs they took of the incident. Petitioners sued the officers in their personal capacities for money damages..................
---<Additional text eliminated> ---------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. <---- Author of the Opinion
Text of the Decision ---> While executing an arrest warrant in a private home, police officers invited representatives of the media to accompany them. We hold that such a "media ride along" does violate the Fourth Amendment, but that because the state of the law was not clearly established at the time the search in this case took place, the officers are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
In early 1992, the Attorney General of the United States approved "Operation Gunsmoke," a special national fugitive apprehension program in which United States Marshals worked with state and local police to apprehend dangerous criminals. The "Operation Gunsmoke" policy statement explained that the operation was to concentrate on "armed individuals wanted on federal
and/or state and local warrants for serious drug and other violent felonies.......
---<Additional text eliminated> ---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part. <---- Author of the [partial] Dissent
Text of the Dissent ---> Like every other federal appellate judge who has addressed the question, I share the Court's opinion that it violates the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a private dwelling during the execution of a warrant unless the homeowner has consented or the presence of the third parties is in aid of the execution of the warrant. I therefore join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion.
In my view, however, the homeowner's right to protection against this type of trespass was clearly established long before April 16, 1992. My sincere respect for the competence of the typical member of the law enforcement profession precludes my assent to the suggestion that "a reasonable officer could have believed that bringing members of the media into a home during the execution of an arrest warrant was lawful................
----<Additional text eliminated>------------------------