Media Ride-Alongs: Fourth Amendment Constraints

• NCJ Number: 184149
• Journal: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 69 Issue: 7 Dated: July 2000 Pages: 26-30
• Author(s): Kimberly A. Crawford
• Date Published: July 2000
• Length: 5 pages
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article reviews the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Layne (1999), which will undoubtedly curtail media ride-alongs with police in the future.

Abstract

Early one morning, Charles and Geraldine Wilson were awakened by the sounds of individuals forcibly entering their home. Scantily clothed, the Wilsons ran to investigate and found several armed law enforcement officers and two reporters in their living room. The officers, under the authority of an arrest warrant, were searching for the Wilsons' son. Although the subject was not in the home, the entire event was witnessed and captured on film by the reporters on the scene. Although the photographs taken were never published, the Wilsons filed a civil suit against the officers who invited the reporters into their home. The action was based on the claim that bringing the media into the home constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Wilsons' Fourth Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted review of the case. The Court recognized that the law enforcement officers entered the Wilsons' residence under the lawful authority of a warrant and were entitled to take steps reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate government purpose of making an arrest; however, the Court found that the reporters were not present for any purpose reasonably related to the execution of the warrant and, thus, the officers exceeded the authority of the warrant by inviting the media to participate. The Court pointed out, however, that the officers involved in the suit relied on their own agency policies when issuing the invitation to the media to participate in the execution of the warrant. Thus, the Court granted the officers qualified immunity. Such qualified immunity will not be available to officers involved in similar conduct in the future. The holding in this case does not preclude the media from witnessing and filming law enforcement activities that occur in public areas. Neither does it prohibit attempts to obtain consent from occupants of residences prior to inviting the media to enter. 20 notes