Cite as
1999 DJDAR 4948Published
Nov. 23, 1999Filing Date
May 24, 1999Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government agents who violated a Fourth Amendment right of homeowners, by allowing members of the news media to accompany execution of a search warrant, were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established before their actions.
Paul and Erma Berger brought suit against special agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and an assistant U.S. Attorney, alleging violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Bergers lived on a 75,000 acre ranch in Montana. In 1993, a magistrate judge issued a warrant authorizing search of the ranch with appurtenant structures, but not the residence, for evidence of taking wildlife in violation of Federal laws. The agents arrived at the ranch and executed the warrant in the company of Cable News Network Inc. photographers and reporters. The media crew recorded the officers' conduct in executing the warrant. Lower courts held that the officers were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for their actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated. The holding in Wilson v. Lane, which established that "police violate the Fourth Amendment rights of homeowners when they allow members of the media to accompany them during the execution of a warrant in their home" was decided at the same time as this case. That decision had the same consequences for the detailed allegations of the present case. Wilson held that "because the law on this question before today's decision was not clearly established, the police in that case were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." The Wilson holding made clear that the specific constitutional right was not clearly established in 1992, and there was no evidence that the law was any clearer at the time of the search in this case one year later.
—
Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97-1927 RODNEY C. HANLON, JOEL SCRAFFORD, KRIS A. MCLEAN, RICHARD C. BRANZELL, AND ROBERT PRIEKSAT, PETITIONERS v. PAUL W. BERGER ET UX. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [May 24, 1999] PER CURIAM.
Respondents Paul and Erma Berger sued petitioners-special agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and an assistant United States attorney-for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971). They alleged that the conduct of petitioners had violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 129 F.3d 505 (CA9 1997). We granted certiorari, 525 U.S. ___ (1998).
Respondents live on a 75,000-acre ranch near Jordan, Montana. In 1993, a Magistrate Judge issued a warrant authorizing the search of 'The Paul W. Berger ranch with appurtenant structures, excluding the residence' for evidence of 'the taking of wildlife in violation of Federal laws.' About a week later, a multiple-vehicle caravan consisting of Government agents and a crew of photographers and reporters from Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN), proceeded to a point near the ranch. The agents executed the warrant and explain that 'Over the course of the day, the officers searched the ranch and its outbuildings pursuant to the authority conferred by the search warrant. The CNN media crew ... accompanied and observed the officers, and the media crew recorded the officers' conduct in executing the warrant.' Brief for petitioners 5.
Review of the complaint's much more detailed allegations to the same effect satisfies us that respondents alleged a Fourth Amendment violation under our decision today in Wilson v. Layne, ante, p. ___. There we hold that police violate the Fourth Amendment rights of homeowners when they allow members of the media to accompany them during the execution of a warrant in their home. We also hold there that because the law on this question before today's decision was not clearly established, the police in that case were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. Ante, at ___.
Petitioners maintain that even though they may have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of respondents, they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We agree. Our holding in Wilson makes clear that this right was not clearly established in 1992. The parties have not called our attention to any decisions which would have made the state of the law any clearer a year later-at the time of the search in this case. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
STEVENS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97-1927
RODNEY C. HANLON, JOEL SCRAFFORD, KRIS A. MCLEAN, RICHARD C. BRANZELL, AND ROBERT PRIEKSAT, PETITIONERS v. PAUL W. BERGER ET UX. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [May 24, 1999] JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
As I explain in my dissent in Wilson v. Layne, ante at ___, I am convinced that the constitutional rule recognized in that case had been clearly established long before 1992. I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court's disposition of this case on qualified immunity grounds.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390