Can cops bring media when they enter a home?

Recent years have seen a proliferation of television programs and news accounts that capitalize on the police "ride-along" in which reporters ride along in police cruisers during a tour of duty or join raids in conjunction with search or arrest warrants. The ride-along has become very popular for the vivid, unrehearsed, behind-the-scenes accounts it provides. Law enforcement officials have supported the idea believing it documents the need for law enforcement activities.

To the extent that ride-alongs are restricted to recording events in public areas, legal challenges have been limited. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear two cases testing whether law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing the media to accompany them when they enter a private home pursuant to a warrant.

Background of the cases

In the first case (Hanlon v. Berger (No. 97-1927) (67 USLW 3315)), federal agents were investigating reports that Paul Berger, who lived on a 75,000-acre ranch in Montana, had been killing protected eagles to protect his livestock. The federal agents agreed to let CNN and TBS employees join them on a raid of Berger's ranch. The judge who issued a search warrant was not told of this agreement. Approaching the ranch, an agent, wearing a hidden CNN microphone, explained to Berger what was going to happen. Agents entered the Berger home, followed by media members who recorded the ensuing search, although Berger was not told and did not realize that the media was present. Following Berger's subsequent trial, video and sound recordings made in the house were broadcast. Berger was ultimately acquitted of all charges except a misdemeanor charge of improper use of a pesticide. Berger and his wife, who was present during the search, sued the federal agents for permitting commercial television cameras to join and film the search of their ranch.

In the second case (Wilson v. Layne (No. 98-83) (67 USLW 3315)), during the early morning hours a team of law enforcement agents attempted to execute an outstanding arrest warrant by going to an address listed as the fugitive's home. As part of a two-week newsgathering activity, two reporters from The Washington Post accompanied them, one with a stillshot camera. Upon entering the residence, officers were encountered by a man dressed only in underwear who was very angry because of the intrusion. Ultimately he was subdued on the floor. Meanwhile, a woman in a sheer nightgown emerged from the back of the house to find an officer pinning her husband face down with a gun to his head. These two individuals later were identified as the fugitive's parents. They were not told that the media was recording these events, although photographs taken were never published. The subject of the warrant, their son, was not present, and the judge who had issued the warrant had not been informed that the media would be present. The parents sued the officers for permitting the media to enter their home to observe and photograph the execution of the warrant.

These cases will be closely watched as a number of highly valued interests converge here. For example, the Supreme Court has not recently considered the protection afforded newsgathering activities of the media. A competing interest is the sanctity of the home. The dissenting opinion in Wilson gave heavy weight to the adage that a person's home is his or her "castle" and that a "private home is not a soundstage for law enforcement theatricals." Finally, law enforcement officials will closely watch this case to determine their vulnerability to lawsuits for actions taken in the course of their duties.

Implications for psychology

A number of behavioral assumptions are raised by these cases for which social scientists may provide insight. The majority opinion in Wilson made three such assumptions, but without citing empirical justification. They were that the presence of the media will: 1) reduce the resistance of targets of warrants because their actions are being recorded; 2) deter crime by enhancing reporting of law-enforcement activities; and 3) deter improper conduct by law-enforcement officers by enhancing public oversight of their activities.

Related empirical questions include: Does the media's presence deter violence or improper conduct or enhance it as the individuals involved "play to the camera"? Does the media's presence unduly exacerbate emotional trauma for the individuals present, particularly third parties that are not the focus of the warrant? Does this media coverage educate the public about law enforcement activities and deter criminal activity or merely provide sensational/entertainment coverage? Does it add to violence levels in the media and have any adverse effects such as enhancing aggression in children? Does it undermine perceptions of privacy and the sanctity of the home?

Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map