SUPREME COURT: POLICE CAN BE SUED OVER `MEDIA RIDE-ALONGS'

WASHINGTON -- In a decision that could put a damper on televised police
raids, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers can be sued for
allowing the media to accompany them on authorized searches of private homes.

In a unanimous decision, the justices agreed that so-called media
ride-alongs with police violate the Fourth Amendment protections against
unreasonable or unlawful searches.

The decision was in response to two cases, from Maryland and Montana, where
officials were sued after they allowed members of the media to accompany
them on searches of private property.

The court, however, held that the officers involved in the two challenged
searches could not be sued because the courts had not previously
established such actions as unconstitutional. The cases occurred in 1992
and 1993.

In writing for the court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist emphasized the
historic roots of the Fourth Amendment, which he said "embodies this
centuries old principle of respect for the privacy of the home."

The chief justice argued that while raids of homes are sometimes necessary,
police do not need to bring journalists or photographers along to carry out
their mission.

Rehnquist also dismissed arguments by the police and media organizations
that having reporters along served the public because it helped promote
crime-fighting efforts and deterred police from abusive behavior.

"Surely the possibility of good public relations for the police is simply
not enough, standing alone, to justify the ride-along intrusion into a
home," the chief justice stated. "And even the need for accurate reporting
on police issues in general bears no direct relation to the constitutional
justification for the police intrusion into a home in order to execute a
felony arrest warrant."

The high court's action will surely affect "reality-based television" shows
such as Fox network's popular Cops, which features live footage of police
raids.

Twenty-four news organizations, including the Hearst Corp., which owns the
Houston Chronicle, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the
police officials.

The media organizations argued that restricted access to such raids would
erode "public understanding of government law enforcement activities in a
manner inimical to the First Amendment."

Even before Monday's ruling, a number of police departments have moved to
restrict live coverage of raids. The Los Angeles Police Department issued
guidelines in March that bar television cameras from entering homes and
other private property without the owners' permission.

The Harris County Sheriff's department halted several years ago the
practice of allowing the media to follow deputies into homes, according to
spokesman Capt. Don McWilliams.

"We had some misgivings before this issue came before the Supreme Court,"
McWilliams said.

McWilliams said that the department allows the media to accompany officers,
but they can only film from the street.

McWilliams said the department will review the court decision to determine
whether additional policy changes are needed.

The Houston Police Department does not allow the media to accompany
officers on raids, spokesman Robert Hurst said. He added that the policy
had been in effect at least as long as C.O. Bradford has been chief of the
department.

The justices spelled out their rationale in a Maryland case involving
police authorities who allowed a Washington Post reporter and photographer
to accompany them when they entered the Rockville home of Charles and
Geraldine Wilson early one morning in 1992.

The Montgomery County sheriff's deputies and deputy U.S. marshals had been
looking for the Wilson's son, Dominic, who had violated his parole on
several felony charges.

But Dominic Wilson was not at the home at the time of the search and
instead the police awakened his parents. The police initially confused the
father with the son and subdued him while his wife watched.

During the incident, the Post photographer took numerous pictures,
including one showing Wilson in his undershorts with a police officer's gun
to his head. The photographs were never published.

The Wilsons sued the police officers, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals threw out their lawsuit. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower
court's ruling that the officers could not be sued, saying that until
Monday they had not established the media restrictions.

The court came to the same conclusion in another case involving a Montana
rancher and his wife who sued after federal agents let a Cable News Network
reporter and camera crew accompany them on a raid of their property.

In 1993, about 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents had raided the
sheep and cattle ranch of Paul and Erma Berger searching for evidence of
eagle poisoning. Berger was acquitted of all charges except the improper
use of a pesticide.

CNN used footage of the raid in a segment on government efforts to protect
endangered species.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Montana couple could
sue government officials as well as CNN.

Once again, the Supreme Court ruled that while a such a search was in
violation of the Fourth Amendment, the officials involved in the Montana
raid could not be sued because they could have reasonably believed that
they were within their constitutional bounds to invite the media along.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens differed from his colleagues on the
question of whether the officers in the two cases should be held liable. In
a lone dissent, Stevens wrote that the constitutional principle guiding
police searches was not a new one.

Chronicle reporter Steve Lash contributed to this story.