October 11, 2011
Should reporters be allowed on ride-alongs during warrant searches?
Posted by amdunn under Discussions[12] Comments
Wilson v. Layne (1999)
Situation:
Since early American history, issues of unlawful searches and seizures have been a common and rising trend. However, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from these unlawful searches and seizures. But what happens when those searches and seizures become public on a greater scale? If a search is lawful, is it constitutional for a reporter to ride-along with the police officers on duty? Reporters are welcome to any information about arrests made through public record, but do they have the right to witness the arrest and report on it from a first-hand account?
Legal Background:
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the lower courts’ disputes. The Court decided that ride-along media coverage of an arrest in a private home violates the Fourth Amendment. In this case, officers invited a reporter and a photographer from the Washington Post to accompany them as they searched the home of Dominic Wilson. When police entered the home, they mistakenly tried to restrain Dominic’s father, Charles Wilson, as Dominic was not present during the intrusion. The reporter observed and the photographer took several photographs during this incident, none of which were published. Wilson claimed the media being inside his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The courts agreed that the police officers should not have brought the media with them when issuing a warrant for the arrest of Dominic Wilson.
Questions:
1. Do you agree with the Court’s decision? Why or why not?
2. If the police restrained the right person, do you think the case would have turned out differently?
3. When is it appropriate for journalists to follow cops on ride-alongs? Or is it unconstitutional at all times?
12 thoughts on “Should reporters be allowed on ride-alongs during warrant searches?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 12th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I definitely agree with the Court’s decision. As someone who will be going into a career as a journalist, I understand the need to be the “first on the scene” of a newsworthy event; but, there are also laws and regulations that must be obeyed. All details of arrests are public record and are available to reporters after the fact, but the reporters have no right and no reason to be there when a warrant leads to an arrest.
Like in the case mentioned above, the police came into the house and attempted to put the suspect’s father into custody. In the heat of the moment, alot can happen. When the photographer took those photos, they could’ve led to a lawsuit if they were published because what if the reporter wrote that the man being detained was the suspect? It seems to me that identifying the wrong person could’ve led to a serious problem.
Alot of mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment. Bringing a warrant to a house and arresting someone is a very private event when the police need to just do their job and sort everything out. The person being arrested has the right to privacy until the actual arrest is made and the police report is written. When that is done, all of the details will be put to paper and everything will be sorted out. Then, reporters should be able to obtain those reports and report on the facts.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I agree with the court’s decision. Like Brian, I agree that while firsthand newsgathering is vital for reporters, other laws must be obeyed. I think a reporter’s presence at an arrest in a home is a gross violation of privacy. Yes, official actions are taking place, but the police have a warrant to be there. Anyone else does not. Whether it was a journalist or a citizen, a non-police presence in a person’s home is a violation of that person’s privacy.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I agree with the courts decision with not allowing the media be present with police officers during warrant searches or anything dealing with the law. I understand that journalists want to seek the truth and report it, but when the individual who is in trouble isn’t tried until proven guilty, they should have privacy rights because journalists need to control the rumor mill as well.
I agree with Brian about making sure the identity of the suspect is correct because this could have gone extremely worse. It could of been different if the cops arrested the right suspect, because I think the journalist would have printed the pictures.
I think there is never a good time for journalists to do ride-alongs with cops because of safety, privacy violations and mistakes that happen on a daily basis, for example with this case.
October 13th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Along with many of the other comments here I agree with the courts decision here. That individual is entitled to his privacy until he or she has been convicted in the court of law of the crime they were arrested for. By taping or photographing for a potential story they could get into issues of reporting false information.
Also, I do not believe it matters that they had the wrong person as the law protects privacy, right or wrong when being arrested.
I do not believe it is ever appropriate for a journalist to follow along. He or she needs to wait until information has been released by police and then report on it from there.
I do have an issue with this, how is it legal to have shows such as Cops?
October 14th, 2011 at 12:58 am
I agree with the courts decision. I think that even though the police were on their way to apprehend a person who committed a crime, this does not mean that the arrest has to be made public. I think that even people who are criminals or are suspected of committing a crime have the same rights to privacy and seizure as the common man.
Privacy is an important freedom for people in this country and the freedom should not change because a news or media organization feels that something is newsworthy. Can the right of the public to know something always interfere with someone’s right to not being searched and privacy? I think that too often the case is made that the public has the right to know about criminals in their community. While this is valid it should not include people who are suspected of crimes. A person should not have their non-seizure freedom revoked anytime they are suspected of a crime. Once they have been convicted of a crime, then the public has the right to know about what they have done, especially if it affects their community.
I do not think that the decision would have changed if the an suspected was home. For one, I revert back to my previous statement that he was not convicted of the crime yet, he was only suspected. I also feel that this is an invasion of privacy for the people, like the man’s father that were living in the house. I think they have a right to not have the media present when the cops busted in
October 14th, 2011 at 3:47 am
1. I agree with the court because citizens have the right to privacy and by having the media brought into their home with the police officers is a violation of that in my opinion. Reporters will have access to the information in public records after the arrest is made so there is no real reason for them to be on the scene.
2. No I do not think that the outcome would have been to much different because the media was still entering the home without permission violating the resident’s privacy.
3. In my opinion I feel that ride-alongs are unconstitutional at all times. The journalist can get the same information about the arrest from the police report while also giving everyone involved their privacy.
October 14th, 2011 at 9:27 am
I agree with the court decision. A judge gives police official a warrant to search a home not the media. Plus the media can capture things that are unrelated to the press.
I think the ruling may have turned out differently just because it was dealing with the criminal. However, I still don’t believe in ride alongs.
I think ride alongs should never be allowed because it violates privacy rights.
October 14th, 2011 at 11:12 am
I do agree with the court’s decision because although it was the cops’ job to search the home of Dominic Wilson, the reporters could’ve gotten by without tagging along with the police officers. In other words, it is vital for the police officers to do their duty but it isn’t 100% necessary for the reporters to capture the scene.
If the police restrained the real Dominic Wilson, the case should’ve turned out the same way because the reporters didn’t have legal paperwork necessary to enter the home.
I believe that it should be unconstitutional for journalists to ride along with police officers because as I stated above, it’s vital for them to be in the home of someone the police are trying to detain. The reporters have the right to be on the scene of an arrest but for them to be in a person’s face while they’re being arrested just causes more trouble than there needs to be.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I agree that reporters should not be allowed to ride along because as this case shows it can affect people who are not the criminal. I don’t think the family and friends of the person being arrested should have to face being on film or photographed if they didnt sign up for it. I also think the presence of reporters might make law enforcement act differently in situations because they feel like the have to prove themselves good or bad to the world.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I agree with the court’s decision and that reporters should not be allowed for ride-alongs for law enforcement issues. If you allow ride-alongs, you risk things like this happening. Having a reporter present during a raid presents a big danger not only to the reporter, but also to the cops, since that is an additional person they have to account for.
Additionally, I don’t think if the proper person was restrained that it would have made any difference. Either way, the person’s right to privacy would have been violated.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
I do agree with the decision of the court. If I or someone in my family were being arrested and in addition to the police inside my house there is a photographer taking pictures of everything, I would feel very violated. I would feel negatively towards that even in a public space, but especially inside my home.
October 21st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
I agree that the reporters should not have been there because of the big invasion of privacy there. Just because you would have the privilege to ride along with a ploiceman does not give someone the right to report everything they see and to harm someone in the process. The police coming into a house and arresting someone is one thing, but for that to be shown in photos or ina video is pretty ridiculous.