Police Can Be Sued for Letting Media See
Raids
By Joan Biskupic and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 25, 1999; Page A08
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that police can be sued
for letting reporters and photographers accompany them on raids of
private homes, a decision that could curtail a widespread practice of
media
"ride-alongs" with law enforcement.
The justices said that police violate the constitutional guarantee
against
unreasonable searches and seizures when they allow reporters and camera
crews to enter homes to observe law enforcement first-hand and, in some
cases, obtain the dramatic footage that is now a staple of television
news
and cop shows.
"[I]t is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members
of
the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a
warrant when [their] presence . . . was not in aid of the execution of
the
warrant," Rehnquist wrote regarding the case, which began when a
Washington Post reporter and photographer burst into a Rockville
couple’s
home with police early one morning in 1992.
The photographer took pictures of resident Charles Wilson, who was
dressed only in undershorts, as an officer wrestled him to the ground
and
put a gun to his head, and his wife, Geraldine, who was wearing a
negligee.
The deputies from the Montgomery County sheriff’s department and the
U.S. marshal’s office had been looking for the Wilsons’ son, Dominic,
who
was a fugitive and who, it turned out, was not in the home. The Wilsons
sued the officers under federal civil rights law.
Under the ruling, police could be forced to pay damages if they bring
members of the media into private homes. But the court said that in the
Maryland dispute and in a companion case from Montana involving CNN,
police would be protected from liability because the law was not yet
clear
when the incidents took place.
Rehnquist noted that government officials, including law enforcement
officers, can have "qualified immunity" from liability for civil damages
if they
could not have known at the time that what they were doing was wrong.
Rehnquist said that these cases met that standard, with only Justice
John
Paul Stevens dissenting from that part of the ruling.
========================================================================
BULLSHIT! – OFR –
========================================================================
Although the legal question in yesterday’s case regarded only the
officers’
liability for inviting the media along and not the media’s
responsibility for
taking part in the action, the case had drawn widespread press
attention.
Ride-alongs involve a common collaboration: the government wants
publicity for its law enforcement efforts, the press wants a first-hand
view
of an arrest.
Lee Levine, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for 24 media
organizations, said "police and law enforcement will be very reluctant
to
invite the media to come along, whether we’re talking about a home or an
open area or riding along in a police car . . . and that will have an
unfortunate effect on news reporting."
John Langley, executive producer of the Fox program "COPS," said that
"as a so-called ride-along program, we are unaffected by the decision
because we obtain releases from everyone involved in our program.
Moreover, we do not, under any circumstances, violate rights of
privacy."
But the releases could become a moot point if police decide to bar
cameras from their raids.
"These shows are in that gray area between entertainment and
journalism,"
said Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"They’re
not actually providing news. It’s more voyeurism with a tinge of
moralism. .
. . what it’s like to ride with a cop, to be a cop."
At The Post, which did not publish the pictures taken during the
Rockville
raid, Deputy Managing Editor Milton Coleman said news-gathering
practices would be largely unaffected. "When we ride along with the
police, in most of those circumstances we’re observing the police in
public
places," he said. But the paper understands "that the individual house
is a
threshold that you don’t cross" on police raids.
A CNN spokesman said the network is studying the ruling.
Attorney Richard K. Willard, who represents the Wilsons, said he was
pleased with the ruling because "it protects people from the indignity
of
having their homes invaded by reporters." Although the Wilsons’ civil
rights
claim has been shut down, Willard noted that a separate federal tort
claim
was still pending.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the two cases in part because federal
courts had produced contradictory rulings.
In the Maryland case, Wilson v. Layne, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that police did not violate the Wilsons’ rights because
past
court cases did not plainly forbid police from taking reporters with
them to
witness an arrest.
But in the Montana case, Hanlon v. Berger, which arose after federal
agents brought along a CNN crew while searching the ranch of a man
suspected of poisoning protected eagles, the 9th Circuit said "no
reasonable officer would have thought it permissible" to allow the press
to
be present.
In yesterday’s cases, the Supreme Court made clear that the Fourth
Amendment does not permit police to bring along the press or any third
party who is not part of the law enforcement mission. Rehnquist
emphasized the sanctity of the home and the residential privacy at the
core
of the Fourth Amendment, dismissing the argument that ride-alongs serve
a
public relations function and help ensure against police misconduct.
Montgomery County Sheriff Ray Kight, who was named in the Wilsons’
suit along with three of his deputies, said he was relieved by the
court’s
finding that Montgomery sheriff’s officials have immunity from the
lawsuit.
"It gives law enforcement throughout the country new guidelines where we
didn’t have any before," he said. But he added, "I think it will
definitely
have a chilling effect on press coverage" of law enforcement.
Staff writers Sharon Waxman and Katherine Shaver contributed to this
report.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
–
– Outlaw Frog Raper –
news:alt.thebird.copwatch
news:alt.law-enforcement
news:nyc.general