436 U.S. 547 (1978)
Late in the day on Friday, April 9, 1971, officers of the Palo Alto Police Department and of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department responded to a call from the director of the Stanford University Hospital requesting the removal of a large group of demonstrators who had seized the hospital's administrative offices and occupied them since the previous afternoon.1 After several futile efforts to persuade the demonstrators to leave peacefully, more drastic measures were employed.2
The demonstrators had barricaded the doors at both ends of a hall adjacent to the administrative offices.3 The police chose to force their way in at the west end of the corridor.4 As they did so, a group of demonstrators emerged through the doors at the east end and, armed with sticks and clubs, attacked the group of nine police officers stationed there.5 One officer was knocked to the floor and struck repeatedly on the head.6 Another suffered a broken shoulder.7 All nine were injured.8
On Sunday, April 11, a special edition of the Stanford Daily, a student newspaper published at Stanford University, carried articles and photographs devoted to the hospital protest and the violent clash between demonstrators and police.9 The photographs carried the byline of a Daily staff member and indicated that he had been at the east end of the hospital hallway where he could have photographed the assault on the nine officers.10
The next day, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office secured a warrant from the Municipal Court for an immediate search of the Daily's offices for negatives, film, and pictures showing the events and occurrences at the hospital on the evening of April 9.11 The warrant issued on a finding of just, probable and reasonable cause for believing that negatives and photographs and films, evidence material and relevant to the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, to wit, Battery on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly Weapon, will be located on the premises of the Daily.12 The warrant affidavit contained no allegation or indication that members of the Daily staff were in any way involved in unlawful acts at the hospital.13
The search pursuant to the warrant was conducted later that day by four police officers and took place in the presence of some members of the Daily staff.14 The Daily's photographic laboratories, filing cabinets, desks, and wastepaper baskets were searched.15 Locked drawers and rooms were not opened.16 The search revealed only the photographs that had already been published on April 11, and no materials were removed from the Daily's office.17
A month later the Daily and various members of its staff, respondents here, brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the police officers who conducted the search, the chief of police, the district attorney and one of his deputies, and the judge who had issued the warrant.18 The District Court denied the request for an injunction but, on respondents' motion for summary judgment, granted declaratory relief.19 The Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam, adopting the opinion of the District Court.20 We issued the writs of certiorari requested by petitioners.21
Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments permit issuance of a warrant to search for evidence on premises occupied by a person not suspected of criminal involvement when probable cause exists to believe the evidence is located there?22
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, permits warrants to search any property for fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime upon a showing of probable cause that the items are located there, without any requirement that the owner or possessor of the premises be suspected of criminal involvement.23 The critical element in a reasonable search is not the culpability of the property owner but reasonable cause to believe that the specific things to be seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.24
Yes. Late in the day on Friday, April 9, 1971, officers responded to a call from the director of the Stanford University Hospital requesting removal of demonstrators who had seized administrative offices. After failed peaceful efforts, police forced entry into a barricaded corridor where demonstrators attacked nine officers with sticks and clubs, injuring all of them. On Sunday, April 11, the Stanford Daily published articles and photographs of the clash, including images bylined by a staff member present at the east end of the hallway.
The next day the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office obtained a warrant from the Municipal Court based on a finding of just, probable and reasonable cause that negatives, photographs, and films showing the events would be located on the Daily's premises and would reveal the identities of perpetrators of felonies including battery on a peace officer and assault with a deadly weapon. The warrant affidavit contained no allegation that Daily staff were involved in the unlawful acts. The search conducted later that day by four officers examined laboratories, filing cabinets, desks, and wastepaper baskets in the presence of staff members but did not open locked areas and removed no materials. These facts establish that the warrant properly issued on probable cause regarding the location of evidence rather than any suspicion of the newspaper itself, satisfying the Fourth Amendment standard that focuses on the presence of the items sought rather than the occupant's culpability.25
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments permit issuance of the warrant under these circumstances.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell concurred to emphasize that there is no constitutional basis for reading a new per se exception into the Fourth Amendment that would require a subpoena whenever the press is involved.27 He noted that the Framers were aware of the historical struggle between Crown and press yet responded with the Fourth Amendment's usual procedures, which apply to the press as to every other person.28 Magistrates should consider First Amendment values when assessing the reasonableness and particularity of a warrant for press offices.29
Whether the First Amendment requires that warrants to search newspaper offices for evidence of crime be issued only upon a showing that a subpoena duces tecum would be impracticable and that important materials will be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction with a restraining order futile?30
The First Amendment does not require that warrants to search newspaper offices for evidence of crime be issued only upon a showing that a subpoena duces tecum would be impracticable or that important materials will be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction and a restraining order futile.31 The Fourth Amendment's requirements of probable cause, specificity as to place and things, and overall reasonableness, applied with particular exactitude when First Amendment interests are implicated, afford sufficient protection against the asserted harms.32
No. The District Court had imposed an additional rule that a newspaper search is permissible only in the rare circumstance where there is a clear showing that important materials will be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction and that a restraining order would be futile.33 The established facts demonstrate that the warrant here issued without any such showing and yet the search remained limited in scope. The officers searched only unlocked areas, conducted the examination in the presence of staff, and removed nothing. This confirms that the standard Fourth Amendment safeguards adequately protected against disruption of publication or exposure of confidential materials.34
The facts further show that the evidence sought consisted of photographs already published the previous day, that the Daily was not suspected of any crime, and that the warrant affidavit supplied probable cause focused solely on the location of relevant images.35 These circumstances satisfied the requirement that warrants be administered with scrupulous exactitude without necessitating the extra preconditions demanded by the lower courts.36
The First Amendment does not impose those additional requirements on the issuance of warrants to search newspaper offices.37
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Stewart dissented on the ground that unannounced police searches of newspaper offices impose unique burdens on the freedom of the press by physically disrupting operations and risking disclosure of confidential sources whose protection is essential to newsgathering.38 He observed that the record contained affidavits from journalists attesting to such burdens.39 A subpoena would have been equally effective here because there was no emergency, the evidence was not contraband, and the Daily was not suspected of crime.40
This approach would have allowed an adversary hearing on a motion to quash before any invasion occurred.41
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that after Warden v. Hayden expanded warrants to reach mere evidence, the probable cause showing for an unannounced search of an innocent third party's files must demonstrate not only relevance but also the need for proceeding without notice, such as a likelihood that the custodian would conceal or destroy the evidence.42 He concluded that the warrant application here set forth no facts suggesting the Daily would destroy the photographs if given notice.43 Therefore the search violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrants lacking adequate justification for the degree of intrusion involved.44