Wilson v. Layne
526 U.S. 603 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
It 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 the presence of the third parties is not in aid of the warrant's execution.
Facts:
- In early 1992, U.S. Marshals and local police participated in 'Operation Gunsmoke' to apprehend dangerous fugitives.
- Dominic Wilson, the son of Charles and Geraldine Wilson, was wanted for violating probation on felony charges, and police records listed his address as his parents' home.
- In April 1992, a Maryland state court issued three arrest warrants for Dominic Wilson, authorizing peace officers to arrest him.
- In the early morning of April 16, 1992, a team of U.S. Marshals and Montgomery County police officers assembled to execute the warrants at the Wilson's address.
- The law enforcement team invited and was accompanied by a Washington Post reporter and a photographer as part of a Marshals Service ride-along policy.
- At approximately 6:45 a.m., the officers and media representatives entered the Wilsons' home.
- Charles Wilson, dressed only in briefs, confronted the officers and was subdued on the floor, while Geraldine Wilson, wearing only a nightgown, observed the scene.
- During the event, the media members observed and took numerous photographs inside the home but did not assist the officers in executing the warrant. The officers soon learned Dominic Wilson was not present and left.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles and Geraldine Wilson sued the law enforcement officers in their personal capacities for money damages in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment, which was based on a claim of qualified immunity.
- The officers (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the district court, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit police officers from bringing members of the news media into a private home during the execution of an arrest warrant when the media's presence does not aid in executing the warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, bringing members of the media into a home during the execution of a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment when their presence does not aid the warrant's execution. The sanctity of the home is a core principle of the Fourth Amendment. While the arrest warrant gave officers the limited authority to enter the Wilsons' home to apprehend their son, it did not authorize them to bring along third parties for purposes unrelated to the warrant's execution. The media's presence was not related to the objective of the authorized intrusion—the apprehension of Dominic Wilson. General law enforcement objectives, such as publicizing efforts to combat crime or ensuring accurate reporting, are not sufficient to justify this additional intrusion into a private residence. However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because this specific Fourth Amendment right was not 'clearly established' in 1992. Given the lack of controlling case law and the existence of agency ride-along policies, a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes, the police action violated the Fourth Amendment. Justice Stevens agreed with the Court's constitutional holding but dissented from its grant of qualified immunity. He argued that the rule prohibiting such actions was, in fact, clearly established long before 1992. The fundamental principle that police action in executing a warrant must be strictly limited to the objectives of the authorized intrusion is deeply rooted in common law and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. In his view, no competent officer could have reasonably believed it was lawful to invite the media into a private home for purposes unrelated to the warrant's execution. Shielding this conduct, he argued, effectively authorizes 'one free violation of the well-established rule it reaffirms.'
Analysis:
This case establishes the clear constitutional rule that media 'ride-alongs' that enter a private home during the execution of a warrant are an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision reinforces the principle that the scope of police action under a warrant is strictly limited to the warrant's express purpose, and generalized goals like public relations cannot justify additional intrusions into the sanctity of the home. However, the Court's holding on qualified immunity highlights the difficulty plaintiffs face in overcoming this defense, as it requires showing that the specific right violated was 'clearly established' by prior case law. This ruling prompted law enforcement agencies across the country to revise their media policies to prohibit entry into private dwellings without homeowner consent.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Layne