NCJ Number
187395
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 90 Issue: 3 Dated: Spring 2000 Pages: 799-825
Date Published
2000
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This note examines the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Abstract
In Wilson v. Layne, the Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they allow members of the media to accompany them into a private home during the execution of a search warrant. Nevertheless, the Court held that the officers in Layne were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity because the violated right was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation. The note agrees that officers' actions violated the Fourth Amendment; the media presence went beyond the clearly stated bounds of the warrant. The note argues, however, that the Court erroneously held that the officers were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. It claims that the law was "clearly established" at the time of the violation; a reasonable officer should have known that the actions at issue would constitute a violation of the well-established principles of the Fourth Amendment. The note claims that: (1) the Court ignored its previous holdings that a right can be "clearly established" even in the absence of a prior factually indistinguishable case holding the conduct at issue unlawful; (2) testimony of the respondents made apparent their knowledge that civilian entry into homes is simply "not allowed"; and (3) two of the three Federal appellate courts that decided this same question of qualified immunity came to a conclusion opposite that of the majority in Layne. Notes