Privacy Rights in the Case

Privacy Rights

In the case of Wilson vs. Layne that was argued in March 24, 1999, and was decided in May 24, 1999, the privacy rights of the citizen, Charles Wilson were challenged when he was interacting with the police, and he was filmed during the act by the media. In fact, Charles Wilson challenged the constitutionality of the arrest procedure that was conducted on his own son by the federal and the state authorities. His claim was that the police had in fact invited the 'media ride-alongs' to watch the fun, so to speak, when the officers would produce their arrest warrant, and when they would subsequently arrest the son. Charles was of the opinion that the officials had violated his Fourth Amendment Rights completely. On appeal, from an adverse District Court rule, the Court of Appeals, although it did deny the officers' immunity, chose not to answer the question about the violation of the Fourth Amendment, and this was because of the fact that no previous case had addressed this issue, and therefore, there was no prior pronouncement on that subject. (Wilson vs. Layne, 526 U.S. 303, (1999))

When the appeal was sent to the Supreme Court, the Court granted Charles the 'certiorari'. The case of Wilson vs. Layne gave rise to the question of whether or not when federal and state officials issue an arrest warrant to a citizen, either at his home or elsewhere, can they allow the media to accompany them on their official duty? And would such an arrest warrant, when it is issued at the home of the individual, be considered to be a violation of a homeowner's Fourth Amendment protection as under 'unlawful search and seizure'? In this particular case, the Court held the ruling that if the media were to be present during the execution of an arrest warrant, then it was to be considered that it was in no way at all related to what the officials were doing during their course of work. The media dose in no way assist the officials, and in the same manner, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the execution of the arrest warrant.

In addition, the connection between the presence of the media, and the furthering of the positive publicity for officers doing their duties because of their presence was not at all clear, and the ruling of the Court was that in this case, the officers did not have any clear idea that it would be considered illegal in any way if they permitted the media to accompany them on their visit to Charles Wilson's house in order to issue an arrest warrant to his son. No prior rule existed in this matter, stated the Court, and therefore, there was nothing wrong in the media accompanying the officials during the course of their duty. Therefore, the Court said, the officials would be granted 'qualified immunity' in this case. (Wilson vs. Layne, 526 U.S. 303, (1999))

The Supreme Court ruled that the entry of the media into a home when officials were searching for a suspect did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment, and in this particular case, of Wilson vs. Layne, when the officials concerned were in the process of executing a search warrant, a reporter from Washington Post, and a photographer, who had both been invited to come along on this official duty, observed, undisturbed, five officials enter the home of in search of a suspect. The suspect was not at home, but his father was, and the father in question happened to be clad in his underwear. Mistaking this poor man for a suspect, the officers pinned him to the ground, and quick enough, the photographer clicked away numerous photographs of this scene. Hearing the commotion, the man's wife, Clad in a nightgown, appeared in the room, and photographs were taken of her as well. Although none of the photographs were published, the fact is that they were taken, and this was a blatant invasion of privacy. (Ad Idem, Wilson vs. Layne) The warrant had in fact made absolutely no mention of the 'media ride along' that had accompanied the officers during their duties.

In addition, the officers happened to enter the home very early in the morning, and this resulted in the confrontation that happened with the petitioners, and the protective sweep carried out ascertained the fact that the son, who was a suspect, was indeed not in the house. Although the reporters and the photographer were indeed present at the scene, they quietly observed what was happening, and did not interfere, in any manner, with the execution of the arrest warrant, and even later, the newspapers did not publish those photographs that had been taken at the scene. The petitioners sued the officers under 'Bivens vs. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents', and stated that the officers' actions in bringing the media to observe and to record the execution of the arrest warrant was basically against their rights under the 'Fourth Amendment'. Subsequently, the District Court denied the respondents' motion for 'summary judgment based on qualified immunity'. (Supreme Court Collection: WILSON V. LAYNE (98-83) 526 U.S. 603 (1999) 141 F.3d 111, affirmed)

However, during reversal, the Court of Appeals found itself unable to decide whether what the officers had done was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and concluded that because such a thing had not been filed in any court of law before, and because no judgment had been passed about whether the presence of the media during the issue of a search warrant or an arrest warrant by police officers was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the particular right that had been violated had not been 'clearly established', and therefore, the respondents were entitled for a 'qualified immunity' in this case of Wilson vs. Layne.

In a similar manner, the phenomenon of a 'media ride-along' had not been brought to the notice of any court of law before, and although it was true that a media ride-along was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the law was not exactly clear on the subject, and because there was no precedent, and that the fact was not clear at the time when the media did enter the petitioner's home, the official could be granted 'qualified immunity'. This qualified immunity analysis was the very same as that which had been awarded in the case of a few other cases like, for example, Graham vs. Connor, and Bivens. It was also pointed out that, under the Fourth Amendment, it was a blatant violation of a homeowner's right if the officers who were supposed to issue a warrant to the homeowner happened to invite either the media or any other third party who had absolutely nothing at all to do with the warrant, and they were not in aid of the warrant, too. (Supreme Court Collection: WILSON V. LAYNE (98-83) 526 U.S. 603 (1999) 141 F.3d 111, affirmed)

The Fourth Amendment, therefore, embodies the age-old principle of respect for the privacy of the home, and even though officers of the law are allowed to enter a home if required to issue a warrant of any kind, it does not necessarily mean that they are entitled to bring with them a group of persons or a single person into the privacy of an individual's home, when issuing the warrant. In this case, the presence of the media, in the form of the photographer and another individual, did nothing to aid the issue of the 'authorized intrusion', which was for the purpose of issuing the warrant for the petitioner's son. The respondents were able to quote several reasons for the presence of the media during the entry of the Wilson home, and these were: to publicize the various efforts being taken by the government to fight crime, to make the accurate and exact recording and reporting of the various law enforcement activities being carried out, to minimize, as far as possible, police abuse, and to 'protect' both the suspects as well as the police officers.

All these justifications and reasons come close to actually justifying the presence of media ride-alongs, and although it may be possible, in some cases, to justify the presence of a third party, in this particular case, the presence of the media cannot be justified. In addition, it was found that the Fourth Amendment Right of the petitioner was not established clearly at the time of the entry, and here, 'clearly established' means that the basic contours of the Right must be clear to such an extent that the officer in charge would be able to comprehend what exactly he is doing that is not within that Right. In other words, although his actions may not have been held unlawful, but when seen in the light of a previously existing law, its very unlawfulness would become apparent and obvious. (Supreme Court Collection: WILSON V. LAYNE (98-83) 526 U.S. 603 (1999) 141 F.3d 111, affirmed)

In a case similar to the case of 'Wilson vs. Layne', in December 1994, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner received a compliant that the Vancouver Police Department had taken a decision to block out the faces of those person who were being interviewed by the police in the program, "To Serve and to Protect." The complainant was KF Media Inc., of Vancouver B.C. KF Media Inc. who was the producer of the program, and it generally used media in ride-alongs when the police were doing their jobs of apprehending a suspect. The media would be invited, with the co-operation of certain Police Departments in British Columbia, to join the police, and film the entire action on video. The purpose, as stated by the police, was to allow camera crews to capture police action on camera, live, so that the very reality of the work that the police officers do during the course of their jobs would be made apparent to the public, who watch the program on television, and the way in which the police manage the wide range of both criminal as well as non-criminal activities during the course of their daily lives would be shot and captured on the cameras brought by the ride-alongs, the media. (Investigation Report, Investigation, P 95-004)

When the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia received the complaint from KF Media, and also form various members of the public, it decided to conduct a thorough investigation on why exactly the police were taking media ride alongs with them while performing their duties. The reason why this investigation became even more important was because it raised the issues of the 'Right to Privacy' of an individual, and also the 'access to Information', when seen in the context of the 'Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy Act'. The actual complaint was this: that the Vancouver Police Department was no longer allowing KF Media to reveal the faces of those persons who had been caught on camera during the media ride-alongs that the Police Department had allowed, during the course of performing their duties. KF media claimed that if it were not allowed to reveal faces, then the entire popularity and uniqueness of their show would be lost, and this would result in huge losses for their company.

In addition, claimed the company, when they went on media ride alongs with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP, they were not required to hide the identities and faces of those being shown on their videotapes, so, therefore, why would the Vancouver Police disallow them from revealing identities and faces? Yet another complaint made by KF Media was that the new ride along policy of the Vancouver Police department was both inconsistent as well as contradictory: the British Columbia Television, or the BCTV, had filmed and broadcast a scene where the Vancouver Narcotics Squad issued an arrest warrant for a suspect, and the identities and faces of the suspects were not hidden at all. The Vancouver Police Department responded to all the above complaints by stating that from the time of the implementation of the 'Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy Act in 1994, it had decided that more often than not it was the disadvantaged people who were filmed in media ride alongs, and that the decision to cover the identities of these people was consistent with the Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy Act. (Investigation Report, Investigation, P 95-004)

The Police department concluded that even if the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner thought that the police Department was more stringent than normal while following the Act, it was still not breaching or breaking any rules by hiding the identities of suspects during an arrest. The Police Department's Information and Privacy Coordinator also said that the decision to hide the faces of suspect shad been taken for numerous reasons, some of them being: allowing a video camera to collect footage on suspects, and air them on television, was in fact an unauthorized disclosure of information by the Department, and that the Department would thereafter set certain policies about the protection of the privacy of its citizens, the basic rule being that one cannot release information of a personal nature, to the public, without the specific consent or written permission of the person whose privacy has been invaded, or if it is actually and truly legitimately necessary for law enforcement purposes.

Thereafter, certain regulations were also quoted, and these were: the suspect's face must be blocked out, after all, a face is the person's personal information, and every citizen who has been filmed must not have his face revealed to one and all. In a similar manner, all records of personal information, like for example, the person's name, and location, must be blanked out, and any criminal record that the person may have must also not be disclosed. There can be no entry permitted into the private residence of the suspect, and if a camera were to be allowed, then it can be only in a public place, where the suspect has no expectation of privacy. Therefore, stated the Privacy Coordinator, if the media were to accompany the police during ride alongs, then they must be careful about maintaining the privacy of the suspect in the above mentioned manner, and they must also take all the necessary steps to ensure that the privacy of the person is not invaded for any reason at all. In response to the original complaint made by the KF Media about the police allowing the BCTV to film scenes of an arrest, the Department stated that the BCTV found the police and followed them and took camera shots of the action, without having been invited to do so. (Investigation Report, Investigation, P 95-004) transcript form a Minnesota New Forum asks the question: Who needs a Jury when we have a Free Press? The issue of whether or not a camera could be allowed into a Courtroom when a decision was being made was discussed, and there were some people who felt that allowing a camera in to the courtroom was unobtrusive, while three were some who felt that it was indeed obstructive and obtrusive. The very act of allowing a camera to film the entire court proceedings was also an invasion of privacy, felt some, while some felt that the jurors would be happier if they were able to refresh their memory with scenes of the actual courtroom drama on a camera. One person had this to say, that everyone used to insist on the 'public's right to know', and today, this has become the 'public wants to know', and everyone wants to know everything there is to know about everybody else's business, and this trend has succeeded in invading the privacy rights of everybody. (Who needs a Jury when we have a Free Press?)

It is in fact a matter of ease to set the media and the issue of privacy against each other, the purpose being to emphasis on the differences between them, and at times, to antagonize each other. What happens as a result is that there will be a comfortable reinforcement of certain attitudes, on both sides, that used to exist even earlier. If, however, more attention were to be paid to compatibility, then perhaps the tensions between the two may be erased, at least to a certain extent. In general, it can be said that people often have to sacrifice their right to privacy when they become famous, and if the media were to explore the exact reasons why these people had become famous, then maybe a balance would become possible between whether to disclose or not to disclose anything newsworthy about these people, keeping in mind that everyone on earth needs a little privacy. (Privacy and Media, subtle compatibility, five categories of fame)

One private citizen, named Jason, writes that one of the most demeaning television shows hat he had ever watched was COPS. He says that it was after he had watched that particular show that he actually started to wonder about the state of affairs in the world today, and about the various messages that are being conveyed by such 'reality' shows being aired with regularity on television, during prime time, and how these messages in fact conflict with the expression of public values in law, and about the basic norms and values of society in general. He says that if it were Canada, the media there in that state would not have been allowed to film COPS, and the reason for this is that the various Privacy Commissioners there were more forceful and strict about the privacy laws of their citizens than they were in the United States of America. (Law and Norms, a comment on privacy and COPS)

Therefore, if the privacy and rights of citizens were to be protected and safeguarded, and the values that are inherent in a civilized society were to be emphasized, then it would mean that the privacy laws are made more stringent and forceful. However, the citizen states, it is only the making of COPS that is banned in Canada, not the watching of it or the airing of the program. Therefore, is there a big difference, he questions. (Law and Norms, a comment on privacy and COPS) Today, the extent of programming on television that shows crime and related issues has become more and more, and it has, in fact, become overwhelming. In fact, those programs that feature fictional police or fictional lawyers have been very popular for many years now, right form the very early years of television, and programs like NYPD Blue, Law and Order, Diagnosis Murder, and Brooklyn South have had high ratings for television viewership for many years now. (Televising Crime fact and fiction)

When the actual history of reality shows on television is analyzed, it becomes apparent that NBC's 'Gangbusters', a radio show aired during the years from 1936 to 1957, which was made into a television show during the late 1950's, was the real cause for the popularity of shows based on cops and crimes. As it was done in 'Gangbusters', all the episodes aired were actually docudramas, with material taken form actual police files and also from FBI files, and what made the show even more interesting was the fact that at the end, a photograph of somebody from the 'Most Wanted' list would be shown, with instruction that if anyone happened to know the whereabouts of that person, then they must call either the FBI, or the police, or the show, Gangbusters.

However, Gangbusters did not gain in popularity, because of the show that was aired at the same time, entitled, Dragnet'. Produced by Jack Webber, this was one of the world's first reality shows, and was also one of the first shows to win an Emmy Award. The hallmark of the show was that all the facts were taken from real police files, and the hero of the show Dragnet, became a real hero who was opposed to the 'vermin' of society, meaning the criminals and others, who were corrupting the world with their various evil deeds. The show also would constantly remind the viewers that what they were watching was all 'true'. Soon, other shows followed in the same footsteps, with material taken from actual police files as their mainstay. These were the 'Highway Patrol', the 'Lineup', and 'Justice', whose materials were taken from the National Legal Aid Society. The show by Jack Webber, called 'Adam-12', which premiered in 1978, provided a virtual 'day on the job' look at a police officer during the course of his duties. The show called 'The Untouchables' by Quinn Martin was about FBI cases, with material taken form FBI files. There were several other shows aired during the same time, and some of them were 'Starsky and Hutch', 'Charlie's Angels', and so on. These shows however, changed in the view of the criminal, whereas earlier he was an evil man, and the cop a good man, out to combat evil with good, in these show, the criminal was seen as a man to be pitied. (Televising Crime fact and fiction)

Gradually, reality became replaced with comedy shows, wherein the Incredible Hulk, the Bionic Woman, and the Six Million Dollar Man would all be able to fight the funny criminal, and beaten to a pulp. It was during the 1980's that realism began to come back, and shows like Hill Street Blues began to be popular once again, and some shows were made by re-enacting real crimes that had taken place earlier, with actors and actresses who would simulate the crime. Sometimes, actual victims, or their families would also be used for these shows. These shows were at times upstaged by shows that would show shots form a camera that was attached to a police car, or to an emergency vehicle, or in a courtroom. Today, technology has become more sophisticated than ever before, and increasingly, ordinary people are being deprived of their ordinary rights of privacy in their everyday lives, because of the monitoring of their lives by hidden surveillance cameras, and other such devices. For example, during daily life, one may use a credit card, and this would be surveyed by an 'electronic eye'. There are some who feel that the electronic eye is in fact today replacing physical coercion for the purpose of maintaining order, everywhere.

In addition, the police are today provided with electronic means of policing, and also for the purpose of guarding and protecting criminals. Camcorders have today become a literal way of life, and all these recording made when the persons in it were unaware that they were being filmed have become very popular television shows, like for example, the show, "America's Funniest Home Videos', and many of the same ilk. The case of 'Rodney King' was where a private citizen who happened to be present at the scene aimed his camera at the police who were engaged in apprehending the criminal. This citizen happened to take plenty of footage of real police action, and when the footage was later aired on television, it caused a riot of outrage and anger among the citizens, against the police. Today, our society is often referred to as a 'surveillance' society, wherein numerous privacy issues that arise when a camera films action that it is not supposed to film are legated to the background in the larger interest of what the public has a right to know, and what it wants to know. (Televising Crime fact and fiction)

Being a surveillance society is however not easy, and this is because of the number of related issues that are involved in conducting a surveillance of any sort on an individual. Privacy issues involve what, exactly can be filmed, and what cannot, what are the types of permissions needed from subjects, and what can be done with the film after scenes from a surveillance have been taken. During the screening of a reality cop show, it is these issues and similar ones, that show live scenes on television, whether they are emergency scenes, or whether they are related to crime, that are being increasingly mired in controversy, because it is the privacy rights of the individual that are to be considered the more important issue than any others. When a video camera focuses on a particular crime scene, for example, it does serve to lend an air of authority over the entire scene, but what it actually succeeds in doing is to mask the real facts behind the scene, like proper police procedure during such scenes, and the privacy rights of the suspect or the victim, as the case may be.

Therefore, it is often said that increases in technology have served to drastically increase what the people behind the camera are actually allowed to see, and this has in fact prompted various members of the public to become keenly interested in what was normally not available to them, like intimate and private details of various strangers' lives, in which they should have no real part to play. This has become especially true when crime scenes are involved, so much so that even the police officers of today feel that they can indeed invite a few members of the media in a ride along, when they are involved in police action of any kind. The show, 'America's Most Wanted', is hosted by John Walsh, whose own six-year-old son, Adam, was kidnapped and murdered, in the year 1981. This person says that he looks at the TV show, not as a mere show, but as a job "as significant as addressing the legislatures." He makes no hassles about how he refers to the criminals, and calls them 'scum bags', creeps', and so on. In general, news cameras arrive at the scene of a crime, after the event, but in this particular TV program, the aim of depicting the horror of the crime scene as it happened became more important, and viewers got a chance to witness first hand of what it would be like to be involved in a crime scene. (Televising Crime fact and fiction)

Paul and Erma Berger sued the special agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and also an Attorney for damages, under the 'Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents', case number 403 U.S. 388, in the year 1971. The complaint was that the special agents had acted in a way that violated the Fourth Amendment Rights of the petitioners. What happened was this: the couple was living in a 75,000-acre ranch in Montana, and in the year 1993, a Magistrate Judge issued a warrant to search the Ranch, but not the residence, of Paul W. Berger, under suspicion and evidence that Berger had been indulging in "the taking of wildlife in violation of Federal laws," and about a week after the warrant was issued, a number of vans, containing not only the relevant government officials who were to do their duty, but also people, including photographers and reporters, from the Cable News Network, Inc., or the CNN, began to arrive at a pre-designated spot near the ranch owned by Berger. The officers entered, and executed the warrant that had been given to them, and searched the ranch as directed. (Supreme Court of the United States: Rodney C. Hanlon, Joel Scrafford, Kris. A. McLean Richard. C. Branzell and Robert Prieksat, Petitioners v. Paul. W. Berger et ux)

The media filmed the entire action of the officers executing the warrant, the reaction on the faces of the respondents, and also, the officers' conduct when executing the warrant. The case is very similar to the case of Wilson vs. Layne, wherein the rights under the fourth Amendment had been breached by police officials who had allowed the media to enter and film the entire scene of issuing an arrest warrant to a suspect's father. In this case, however, the Supreme Court gave the opinion that since the law on the issue of Privacy Rights, and a breach in the Fourth Amendment, were not clearly established at any date prior to this, it could be assumed that the police in this case were entitled to the defense of 'qualified immunity', just as it had happened in the case of Wilson vs. Layne. Petitioners state that even if they had happened to violate the Fourth Amendment Rights of a respondent, they were still entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, and this is very true, especially when examined in the light of other similar cases, like for example, the case of Wilson vs. Layne, where the right had not been properly established in the year 1992. (Supreme Court of the United States: Rodney C. Hanlon, Joel Scrafford, Kris. A. McLean Richard. C. Branzell and Robert Prieksat, Petitioners v. Paul. W. Berger et ux)