Media `ride-alongs' violate the Constitution, Supreme Court rules.

Are warranted searches unreasonable when officers bring reporters along? Reporters watched the practice of police "ride-alongs," in which they accompany officers to the scene of a crime or on routine police business, hang in the balance while the Supreme Court debated the answer.

In May, the Court ruled unanimously that the Fourth Amendment does not allow police to bring along reporters or any third party not affiliated with the law enforcement mission.

"It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when [their] presence ... was not in aid of the execution of the warrant," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote.

Officers who bring the media into private homes to watch police in action can be held liable for civil damages. However, law enforcement officials involved in the two cases in question will not be liable, since government officials have "qualified immunity" from liability if they could not have known at the time that what they were doing was wrong, the Court said.

In Wilson v. Layne (No. 98-83, 1999 WL 320817 (May 24, 1999)), Maryland police and deputy U.S. marshals took a Washington Post reporter and a photographer with them when they searched the home of Charles and Geraldine Wilson for their son Dominic, who had allegedly violated probation. The photographer took pictures of Charles Wilson on the floor with a gun to his head and his wife looking on, wearing only a negligee. The newspaper did not print the photos.

The Wilsons sued the police for violating the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. "The Wilsons were very embarrassed to be photographed that way. And then they found out the pictures were in the hands of the media. That made it so much more intrusive," said their attorney, Richard Willard. (Joan Biskupic, High Court to Review Reporter Ride-Alongs in Police Raids, Wash. Post, Mar. 21, 1999, at A2.)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the officers didn't violate the Wilsons' rights because former court cases did not plainly prohibit police from bringing reporters to witness an arrest in a private home and officers could have reasonably believed media accompaniment would serve law enforcement interest.

In Hanlon v. Berger (No. 97-1927, 1999 WL 320818 (May 24, 1999)), federal agents brought a CNN crew on a search of a Montana ranch owned by Paul Berger, who was suspected of poisoning protected eagles. Berger was later convicted of a misdemeanor for misusing a pesticide. CNN used video footage from the Berger ranch in a story about ranchers killing animals.

Berger and his wife sued U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents for violating their civil rights by allowing members of the media to film the search and exposing their conversations and possessions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that allowing reporters to be present violated the Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The Supreme Court's decision "will have an unfortunate effect on news reporting," said attorney Lee Levine, who filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of 24 news organizations-including the Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The brief argued the press functions as a watchdog that can monitor abuse of government power "by observing and recording first hand the activities of government officials charged with enforcing the law."

The Court's decision affects only officers' liability in inviting third parties on official business. The media's responsibility was not at issue.