Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)

1. Facts of Case

On April 9, 1971 there was a demonstration outside the Stanford University hospital, and after protesters’ apprehended the hospital’s administrative offices since the afternoon of April 8, 1971 law enforcement was finally called. The demonstrators did not want to leave peacefully, barricaded themselves within the hospital and when law enforcement arrived the protestors attempted to resist them by using violence. All nine police officers that entered Stanford University Hospital that day were injured by the protesters. Not all assaulters were able to be identified at the time by the police. Two days later, the student ran newspaper, the Stanford Daily published articles and photographs of the incident, proving staff member of the paper was taking photographs where the incident of violence against the police officers occurred. Following this issue’s release the District Attorney’s office obtained a warrant from the Santa Clara County Municipal Court for a search of the Stanford Daily’s negatives, film, and pictures of the event that took place on April 9th, in hopes of identifying the individuals who assaulted the police. The Stanford Daily’s office was searched by police, yet some rooms and drawers were locked for confidential material. The law enforcement left with nothing.

In May, the some Stanford Daily staff members brought a civil suit against the police officers who conducted the search, and all those in charge of issuing and carrying out the warrant of the Daily’s search. This was in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming the Stanford Daily’s office had deprived them of the state law of rights guaranteed to them by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The District Court made a denial of the plaintiff’s request for a ruling, but granted a summary judgment. The court agreed that there was probable cause to believe there was indeed relevant evidence located in the Stanford Daily’s office. However, it held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment’s issuing of a warrant for the photographs were not in the possession. The sworn affidavit, for the staff members’ to produce the photographs and other materials would be impractical. The failure to honor the subpoena would not alone justify the warrant. The search would only have been constitutionally permissible in only rare circumstances, where there is a clear reason to believe that important materials will be destroyed from the premises and a restraining order would be worthless. The court ruled that the preconditions for a valid warrant in this case were not met; meaning the search of the Stanford Daily’s office was illegal.

This decision was appealed by Zurcher, and The Appellate Court found that there is no apparent basis in the language of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, commanding the necessities for a valid arrest would mean that there is probable cause to believe that the third party is concerned in the crime. This was previously ruled in the case Camara v. Municipal Court and See v. Seattle. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit articulated the accurate view and of the Fourth Amendment when, contrary to the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the District Court in  the U.S. Supreme Court Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978). The Supreme Court reversed lower courts’ previous rulings, finding the warrant and search of the Daily’s office lawful.

2. Legal Issue

How should the Fourth Amendment be interpreted and applied to a “third party” search, where state authorities have probable cause to believe that evidence of crime is located on identified property, but do not at the time have probable cause to believe that the owner or possessor of the property is himself/ herself concerned in the crime that has taking place or has previously occurred?

 

3. Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Zuchner, ruling that the third-party occupant, whether suspect in association with a criminal case or not, the State’s interest is enforcing the criminal law and recovering the evidence remains the same.

4. Analysis

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily ruled in favor of Zurcher, feeling the State’s/ public interest in enforcing criminal law by recovering evidence from a third party is indeed lawful. Yet, for the media in protection of the First Amendment rights, the court looked to two cases, Stanford v. Texas and Roaden v. Kentucky. Stanford v. Texas ruled that the seizure and search reasonable as to one type of material in one setting may be unreasonable in a different setting or with respect to another kind of material. The court found that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the cases requiring consideration of First Amendment values in issuing search warrants. They also ruled that concerning the media, a warrant requested is for the seizure of criminal evidence reasonably believed to be on the premises occupied by a newspaper. By being Properly administered, the preconditions for a warrant, being probable cause, with respect to the place to be searched and the things to be seized and acting with reason. This should be sufficient protection against the harms that are threatened by warrants for searching newspaper offices.

5. Questions

1. As a Journalist, what is the significance of this case to you?

2. In what ways does Zurcher v. Stanford Daily differ from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District?

3. Concerning the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, do you find the lower court’s rulings in favor of the Stanford Daily more fitting for the case than the Supreme Court’s Ruling?