Wednesday, May 26, 1999 | 9:56 a.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed one of this nation's most inviolate privacy protections, the right of a citizen to be secure in his own home, protected from an unreasonable search or arrest. The court unanimously ruled Monday that police violate residential privacy rights "at the core of the Fourth Amendment" when journalists accompany them into homes to observe arrests or searches.
The court's decision arose out of two separate cases. In the first instance, U.S. marshals in April 1992 obtained arrest warrants for Dominic Wilson in Rockville, Md. Unknown to police, though, the house they searched was actually the home of his parents, who were in bed when the officers entered their home. Charles Wilson was only wearing underwear when he went to his living room, where five officers were waiting with guns. His wife came in next, wearing only her nightgown. Accompanying the police were a photographer and a reporter from the Washington Post. The photographer took a number of pictures of the home, although they were never published. In the second case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents entered Paul Berger's ranch in Montana with a search warrant in March 1996, seeking evidence he was poisoning eagles. CNN reporters and photographers acc ompanied the federal agents, who had CNN cameras attached to the government vehicles as the raid was conducted.
For some media organizations, these ride-alongs with the police have become a staple of their news gathering. The often dramatic ride-alongs have even extended to network entertainment shows, such as "Cops." The police also benefit from ride-alongs because they show the public how police apprehend suspected criminals. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court: "Surely the possibility of good public relations for the police is simply not enough, standing alone, to justify the ride-along intrusion into a private home."
A number of media organizations argued that if they could not accompany the police on these searches, the media's government watchdog role would be curtailed. But Rehnquist directly refuted this when he noted there is no constitutional justification for the media to be present during a search. "And even the need for accurate reporting on police issues in general bears no direct relation to the constitutional justification for the police intrusion into a home in order to execute a felony arrest warrant," Rehnquist wrote. Journalists may still come along when an arrest or search is made, the court ruled, but they will need to wait outside as the police enter the home.
Seemingly every day in this nation our privacy rights are eroded, bit by bit. The court's decision, though, tries to stem this tide by embracing an English court's now much-repeated declaration in 1604 that "the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence, as for his repose."
archive
