Facts
- Demonstrators held a prolonged sit-in at Stanford University Hospital, and a confrontation with police resulted in injuries to numerous officers.
- A staff photographer for a student newspaper took photographs during the events, and the newspaper published articles and some images.
- Prosecutors believed the newspaper possessed unpublished photographs and negatives that could help identify individuals who assaulted officers.
- A magistrate issued a warrant authorizing a search of the newspaper’s offices for the photographic materials.
- Police executed the warrant by searching areas and containers in the newsroom, but removed no materials.
- The newspaper and staff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments.
Issues
- Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments bar issuance of a search warrant for evidence on premises occupied by a third party not suspected of involvement in the crime under investigation.
- Whether the First Amendment requires the government to seek evidence from a newspaper by subpoena rather than search warrant, or otherwise imposes heightened prerequisites beyond ordinary Fourth Amendment standards.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held the Fourth Amendment permits warrants to search premises of an innocent third party when there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is located there.
- The Court held the press has no constitutional immunity from searches conducted under otherwise valid warrants, and the Constitution does not impose a general subpoena-first requirement for newsroom materials.
- The Court stated that when searches implicate First Amendment–related materials, warrant requirements must be applied with particular exactitude, including strict probable cause and particularity limits.
- A concurrence emphasized vigilant judicial supervision to protect press functions, while dissents would have required subpoenas absent a clear showing that subpoenas would be impracticable (such as risk of destruction or removal).
Legal Principles
- The reasonableness of a search warrant does not turn on whether the occupant of the premises is suspected of crime; it turns on probable cause to believe specified evidence is located at the place to be searched.
- Search warrants, though intrusive, are constrained by constitutional safeguards: probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate and particularized descriptions limiting scope and officer discretion.
- The First Amendment does not create categorical protections against searches of news organizations under valid warrants.
- Where materials sought are connected to expressive activity, Fourth Amendment requirements must be enforced with particular exactitude, especially as to probable cause and particularity.
Conclusion
A warrant may authorize a search for evidence on the premises of an uninvolved third party, including a newsroom, so long as traditional Fourth Amendment requirements are satisfied; the First Amendment does not mandate that the government proceed by subpoena instead of warrant, though courts must apply warrant standards with special care when press materials are implicated.