Editorial: Preserving privacy of our homes

In addition, CNN reporters and photographers also came along. CNN even wired one of the agents with a hidden wireless microphone. Despite the made-for-television search, a jury eventually acquitted Berger of the charges, except for a misdemeanor violation for misusing a pesticide.

But the story didn't end there. Berger's subsequent lawsuit against the federal government is one of two cases the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this year on whether the media will be allowed to continue to accompany police when they search homes. Berger contends that the government violated his privacy rights, which are protected by the Fourth Amendment, when members of the media joined the search.

One of the most cherished protections Americans have is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, ensuring the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures ..." This constitutional safeguard requires that the police must have a search warrant signed by a judge before they enter a home, unless they are actively chasing a criminal suspect.

Outside of the agents themselves, the police are allowed to have a third party accompany them during the search of a home -- as long as the third party is essential to the operation. This would include a translator, for instance, who could assist if there is a language barrier. Some media organizations have filed briefs with the high court, arguing that they, too, have a right to be present when the home is searched; to do otherwise, they argue, would lessen the media's government watchdog role.

But there is no constitutional right -- explicitly or implicitly -- for the media to be present as a third party when a home is searched by the police. The Fourth Amendment grants only law enforcement and its agents the power to conduct these searches.

If the media were granted a constitutional right to accompany police officers, what's to stop other groups from coming along, too? As syndicated columnist Charles Levendosky has pointed out, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to grant the media greater First Amendment rights than any citizen. As an example, during oral arguments March 24, Justice Antonin Scalia rhetorically asked the federal agents' lawyer: Could a government agent elect to take along his sister-in-law during a search?

Sure, the photos or video from searches inside a home can be riveting, but the invasion of privacy that this creates is so far-reaching and intrusive that it shouldn't be protected by the Constitution. The bottom line is that a man's home is his castle and the Supreme Court should do nothing to further erode this right.

archive