Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hanlon v. Berger

Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. 808 (1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-05-24
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that police violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing a media crew to accompany them onto the premises and observe a search

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hanlon v. Berger. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
34 opinions
HANLON v. BERGER,526 U.S. 808(1999)
RODNEY C. HANLON, JOEL SCRAFFORD, KRIS A. McLEAN, RICHARD C. BRANZELL, AND
ROBERT PRIEKSAT, PETITIONERSv. PAUL W. BERGER ET UX.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
No. 97-1927
Decided May 24, 1999
Respondents filed this suit for damages underBivens v. Six Unknown Fed.Narcotics Agents,403 U.S. 388, alleging that petitioners — united States Fish and Wildlife Service special agents and an assistant United States attorney — violated their Forth Amendment rights when the agents, accompanied by Cable News Network, Inc., photographers and reporters, searched respondents' ranch and its outbuildings puruant to a warrant.Held:Although respondents allege aFourth Amendmentviolation underWilson v. Layne, ante, p. 603, petitioners are entitled to a qualified immunity defense. InWilson, this Court held that police violate homeowners'Fourth Amendmentrights when they allow the media to accompany them during the execution of a warrant in a home, but that because the law was not clearly established before today, the police in that case were entitled to a qualified immunity defense.Wilsonmakes clear that respondents' right was not established in 1992, and the parties here have cited no decisions which would have made the law any clearer when this search took place a yearn later.129 F.3d 505vacated and remanded. n
Richard A. Cordrayargued the caus for petitioners. With him on the briefs wasJames A. Anzelmo.Henry H. Rossbacherargued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents Berger et al. wereNanci E. NishimuraandJay F.Lansing. P. Cameron DeVore, Jessica L. Goldman, andDavid C. Kohlerfiled briefs for respondents Cable News Network, Inc., et al.fn*Page 809
PER CURIAM.
Respondents Paul and Erma Berger sued petitioners — special agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and an assistant United States attorney — for damages underBivensv.Six Unknown Fed. NarcoticsAgents,403 U.S. 388(1971). They alleged that the conduct of petitioners had violated their rights under theFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.129 F.3d 505(CA9 1997). We granted certiorari,525 U.S. 981(1998).

Respondents live on a 75,000-acre ranch near Jordan, Montana. In 1993, a Magistrate Judge issued a warrant authorizing the search of "The Paul W. Berger ranch with appurtenant structures, excluding the residence" for evidence of "the taking of wildlife in violation of Federal laws." App. 17. About a week later, a multiple-vehicle caravan consisting of Government agents and a crew of photographers and reporters from Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN), proceeded to a point near the ranch. The agents executed the warrant and explained: "Over the course of the day, the officers searched the ranch and its outbuildings pursuant to the authority conferred by the search warrant. The CNN media crew . . . accompanied and observed the officers, and the media crew recorded the officers' conduct in executing the warrant." Brief for Petitioners 5.

Review of the complaint's much more detailed allegations to the same effect satisfies us that respondents alleged aFourth Amendmentviolation under our decision today inPage 810Wilsonv.Layne,ante, p. 603. There we hold that police violate theFourth Amendmentrights of homeowners when they allow members of the media to accompany them during the execution of a warrant in their home. We also hold there that because the law on this question before today's decision was not clearly established, the police in that case were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.Ante, at 605-606.

Petitioners maintain that even though they may have violated theFourth Amendmentrights of respondents, they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We agree. Our holding inWilsonmakes clear that this right was not clearly established in 1992. The parties have not called our attention to any decisions which would have made the state of the law any clearer a year later — at the time of the search in this case. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
As I explain in my dissent inWilsonv.Layne,ante, at p. 618, I am convinced that the constitutional rule recognized in that case had been clearly established long before 1992. I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court's disposition of this case on qualified immunity grounds.Page 811
  1. A brief ofamici curiaeurging reversal was filed for ABC Inc., et al. byLee Levine, James E. Grossberg, Jay Ward Brown, Henry S.Hoberman, Richard M. Schmidt, Jr., Susanna M. Lowy, Harold W. Fuson,Jr., Barbara Wartelle Wall, Ralph E. Goldberg, Karlene W. Goller, JerryS. Birenz, Slade R. Metcalf, Jack N. Goodman, David S. J. Brown, Rene P.Milam, George Freeman, andJane E. Kirtley.

    Briefs ofamici curiaeurging affirmance were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers byJoshua L. Dratel; and for the National Association of Securties and Commercial Law Attorneys byKevinP. Roddy.M. Reed HopperandRobin L. Rivettfiled a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation asamicus curiae. ↩