Cite as: 526 U. S. 603 (1999)
Appendix to opinion of Stevens, J.
appendix and suggests handing out free Marshals Service T-shirts and caps to "grease the skids," it contains no discussion of the conditions which must be satisfied before a news-person may be authorized to enter private property during the execution of a warrant. App. 12. There are guidelines about how officers should act and speak in front of the camera, and the document does indicate that "the camera" should not enter a private home until a "signal" is given. Id., at 7. It does not, however, purport to give any guidance to the marshals regarding when such a signal should be given, whether it should ever be given without the consent of the homeowner, or indeed on how to carry out any part of their law enforcement mission. The notion that any member of that well-trained cadre of professionals would rely on such a document for guidance in the performance of dangerous law enforcement assignments is too farfetched to merit serious consideration.
* * *
The defense of qualified immunity exists to protect reasonable officers from personal liability for official actions later found to be in violation of constitutional rights that were not clearly established. The conduct in this case, as the Court itself reminds us, contravened the Fourth Amendment's core protection of the home. In shielding this conduct as if it implicated only the unsettled margins of our jurisprudence, the Court today authorizes one free violation of the well-established rule it reaffirms.
I respectfully dissent.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF STEVENS, J.
"MEDIA RIDE-ALONGS
"The U. S. Marshals Service, like all federal agencies, ultimately serves the needs and interests of the American public
625
Page: Index Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007