AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Search and Seizure: Media Presence
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability from Media Activities During Law Enforcement Operations, 2008 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
Journalists claimed
that FBI agents, while executing a search warrant at a condominium building,
grabbed and assaulted them, and used pepper spray and metal batons against them
when they entered a gated area. The agents were using the building's fences and
security structure in an attempt to restrict the flow of people into the area,
and allegedly did not give them a chance to exit before using force against
them. The court found that there was no special First Amendment right of access
by the press to enter property that was not in the public domain. The court
found, however, that some of the journalists' Fourth Amendment claims were
improperly dismissed. The appeals court ruled that "mere obstinance"
by a crowd did not justify the use of force when there is no showing that crowd
members posed a public safety threat or that any other law enforcement
considerations were at risk. The court ruled, therefore, that Fourth Amendment
excessive force claims by individual journalists could proceed, while the
rejection of all First Amendment claims was upheld. Asociacion de Periodistas
de Puerto Rico v. Mueller, No. 07-2196, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12783 (1st Cir.).
New York court declines
to dismiss claims against a production company and two broadcasting companies
alleging that in the course of filming a "reality-based" television
program showing police on patrol they encouraged police to use excessive force,
adopting a common plan to use excessive which resulted in injuries suffered
when a police detective fired his gun, injuring a woman during the execution of
a search warrant. Rodriguez v. City of New York, No. 2004-11173 (Index No.
20154/04), 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 15242 (2nd Dept.). [N/R]
Subjecting a homeowner, following a search of his
home and his arrest for dealing in harmful materials to a minor and a drug
offense, to a "perp walk" resulting in him being photographed as he
was led from his home to a police vehicle did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights. The media representatives did not enter the homeowner's property, and
the officers' actions were reasonable, since the residence may have been used
to victimize young women and expose them to sex and drugs. Publication of the
photos of the arrestee's face could help alert other possible victims and
encourage them to provide information to aid the investigation. Gibbons v.
Lambert, No. 2:02 CV 01244, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Utah 2005). [N/R]
County's action in videotaping county
correctional officer when he was escorted to a car to be transported to a
police station for booking in a "perp walk" manner was a
"seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, but his privacy interest in not
having the videotape broadcast to the public is found to be outweighed by a
legitimate governmental purpose in informing the public about efforts to stop
abuse of disability benefits by its employees and to deter others from
attempting similar crimes. Caldarola v. County of Westchester, No. 01-7457, No.
01-7457, 343 F.3d 570 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Dec]
346:158 Officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for subjecting arrestee to "perp walk" displaying him to the
media in 1997, as the right not to be displayed in this manner was not then
clearly established. Lyde v. New York City, 145 F. Supp. 2d 350 (S.D.N.Y.
2001).
337:12 UPDATE: Federal appeals court rules that
"perp walks"--parading arrestees for the sole purpose of having them
photographed--violate the Fourth Amendment. Lauro v. Charles, #99-7239, 219
F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2000).
326:19 Publishing company was not entitled to an
injunction against statute placing restrictions on the release of and use of
information concerning the names and addresses of arrestees, which provided
that such addresses could not be used for the sale of any products or services;
statute on its face did not restrict commercial speech, but merely regulated
the release of information in the hands of law enforcement. Los Angeles Police
Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., #98-678, 120 S. Ct. 483 (1999).
319:99 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously holds that
allowing members of the news media to enter private residences along with law
enforcement officers during the execution of arrest or search warrants violates
the Fourth Amendment rights of the residents; individual defendant officers
were entitled to qualified immunity in two cases before the Court. Wilson v.
Layne, #98-83, 119 S.Ct. (1999); Hanlon v. Berger, No. 97-1927, 119 S.Ct. 1706
(1999).
317:77 Federal trial court rules that "perp
walks"--parading arrestees in front of the media for the sole purpose of
having them photographed--violates the Fourth Amendment. Lauro v. City of New
York, 39 F.Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
314:19 U.S. Supreme Court to examine whether
allowing media to accompany law enforcement in executing arrest or search
warrants on private property violates Fourth Amendment and availability of
qualified immunity, at this time, for such actions. Wilson v. Layne, #96-1185,
141 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1998), reported in Liability Reporter No. 311, p. 174
(Nov. 1998), cert. granted, #98-83, 119 S.Ct. 443 (1998); Berger v. Hanlon,
#96-35251, 129 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, Hanlon v. Berger,
#97-1927, 119 S.Ct. 443 (1998).
Editor's Note: For another recent decision in
this area, see Swate v. Taylor, 12 F.Supp. 2d 591 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (DEA agent
violated Fourth Amendment rights of private methadone clinic owner by allowing
TV crew to come onto premises while search warrant was being executed, and was
not entitled to qualified immunity).
311:174 Homeowners had no "clearly
established" right in 1992 to insist that officers not bring members of
the media into their home while executing a valid arrest warrant; officers were
therefore entitled to qualified immunity in federal civil rights lawsuit.
Wilson v. Layne, 141 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1998).
304:61 Federal appeals court rules that having
media representatives with audio and video taping equipment accompany federal
agents in executing search warrant on ranch could violate Fourth Amendment;
court expresses concern that search and recording was planned for commercial
and entertainment purposes rather than purely for legitimate law enforcement
purposes. Berger v. Hanlon, 129 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 1997).
301:6 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for allowing reporters with cameras to accompany them while executing
arrest warrant in private home. Wilson v. Layne, 110 F.3d 1071 (4th Cir. 1997).
Editor's Note: " See also Parker v. Boyer, 93 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1081 (1997), finding that the officers were entitled to
qualified immunity for allowing media representatives to accompany them.