COURT BANS MEDIA FROM POLICE RAIDS IN HOMES

WASHINGTON -- In a ruling emphasizing the sanctity of the home, the Supreme
Court said Monday that police officers cannot bring the media along when
they go inside a person's house to execute an warrant or make an arrest.

The court unanimously ruled that law-enforcement authorities violate the
Constitution when they allow the media to come inside.

The practice is so intrusive, the court said, that it violates the 4th
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Law-enforcement authorities and media organizations had argued in favor of
the practice. They maintained that it furthered police objectives by
educating the public and was important for accurate reporting on police
issues.

They also argued that it could serve to minimize police abuses and to
protect suspects.

The practice of media ride-alongs has become increasingly popular in recent
years. The television show "COPS," for example, is devoted exclusively to
following police officers on the beat, and it has spawned several imitators.

Monday's ruling will have an impact on those shows, but it won't kick them
off the air. Lawyers noted that the camera can still go along, so long as
it stops at the front door--or unless the residents give them permission to
come inside.

"This still means media ride-alongs with police will be permitted in the
vast majority of circumstances--anytime you do an activity in public, and
most drug arrests and raids occur in public places," said Richard Cordray,
who represented federal law-enforcement officers in two cases before the
court. "The only limit is if you go into a home, the media can't go in."

Some issues remain unresolved. The court did not mention whether the media
can go with police into an office building or an apartment building lobby.

Those gray areas could lead some officers to turn down media ride-along
requests, fearful of prompting new litigation, some lawyers said.

But in the two cases before the Supreme Court, two couples said it was
simply too intrusive.

The first case concerned Charles and Geraldine Wilson, a Maryland couple
roused from bed early one morning when police entered their home to arrest
their son. He wasn't there, but, unbeknownst to the Wilsons, a reporter and
photographer for The Washington Post were present with the officers.

The other case involved Paul and Erma Berger, a Montana couple who sued
officers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the agents allowed a
Cable News Network crew to come along during a search of their ranch.

The federal agents were looking for evidence that Paul Berger poisoned bald
eagles. The Bergers also sued CNN, and that suit is pending.

The court said the same principles applied in both cases against the
law-enforcement officers. It issued a summary ruling in the Berger case,
even though the facts were slightly different.

A federal agent, for example, entered the Bergers' home wearing a hidden
CNN microphone that transmitted sound to a CNN technical crew.

In siding with the two couples, the court said the police and media's
concerns about the public interest simply weren't enough to justify such an
invasion into a person's very private space.

Police are justified in bringing third parties along, the court said, only
when they are needed in executing the warrant.

Where police enter a home with a warrant to search for stolen property, for
example, a third person may be needed to identify the property, the court
noted.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist made several
references to the sanctity of the home--an ideal that predates the
Constitution, having been recognized by courts in England as early as 1604.

"In 1604, an English court made the now-famous observation that `the house
of every one is to him as his castle and fortress,' " Rehnquist noted. "The
4th Amendment embodies this centuries-old principle of respect for the
privacy of the home."

The 4th Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant before
searching a home, unless they get the person's consent or have some type of
emergency. It also requires that any police action inside be related to the
objectives in the warrant.

"Certainly the presence of reporters inside the home was not related to the
objectives of the authorized intrusion," the court said. The court did not
hold the officers liable in the two cases because the law was unsettled
when they gave the media permission to accompany them.