Police Can’t Bring Media Into Homes, Court Rules

The Supreme Court called a halt Monday to the police practice of taking news reporters and television crews with them to observe raids in private homes, a ruling that could crimp some “reality based” television shows.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices said that the privacy rights of people in their homes cannot be waived by the police.

While officers with a search warrant have a right to enter a home, they do not have the authority to bring reporters or camera crews along, the court said.

Until recently, so-called media ride-alongs were a common practice in some cities. Police on patrol sometimes took reporters with them. And on occasion, the reporters went along as observers when officers burst into a house or an apartment. This practice had become controversial in recent years when TV crews joined in and residents were surprised that their arrests or searches of their homes were being videotaped.

In one case, the CBS-TV program “Street Stories” turned a camera on an embarrassed mother and her frightened child as federal immigration agents rushed through their New York apartment. They were searching for her husband, who was not there.

Other programs, such as Fox TV’s “Cops” have used film footage of police on patrol as “reality” entertainment.

When the issue came before the Supreme Court in March, the justices expressed disbelief that law enforcement officers thought such joint media-police operations were legal. But, because the law has been unclear until now, officers cannot be sued for past operations that included the media, the justices said on a 8-1 vote.

The court stressed that the 4th Amendment “embodies the centuries-old principle of respect for the privacy of the home.” This means unauthorized intruders, such as reporters, have no business entering a private home. But the 4th Amendment has not been interpreted to shield persons from being photographed in public.

In one case decided Monday, federal agents and local police brought a Washington reporter and photographer into a Maryland home when they were searching for a fugitive. They raided the home of the man’s elderly parents, who then sued the officers.

Nonetheless, the U.S. court of appeals in Richmond, Va., blocked the lawsuit and said that officers were immune from being sued because the law has been unclear. The high court upheld that ruling (Wilson vs. Layne, 98-83) in total.

A second case (Hanlon vs. Berger, 97-1927) involved a CNN camera crew that went along with federal agents who raided a Montana ranch. They were looking for evidence that rancher Paul Berger had poisoned endangered bald eagles.

In a strong opinion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had cleared the way for the wildlife officers, a federal attorney in Montana and CNN to be held liable for the invasion of privacy.

On Monday, the high court reversed a key portion of that ruling and said that the agents and the assistant U.S. attorney cannot be sued for past actions. The justices did not take up a separate appeal filed by CNN. However, Monday’s opinion would suggest that the network also should escape liability, since the law was unclear at the time the network’s reporters went to the Montana ranch.