Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily

In April 1971, violence and injuries resulted when police from Palo Alto, California, confronted demonstrators at Stanford University Hospital. Subsequently, officers obtained a warrant and searched the offices of the student newspaper, which had printed a photograph of the incident. Police found no additional pictures, but in the process they read a number of confidential files. The Stanford Daily brought civil charges against the police, contending that the search violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that a warrant was not appropriate for searching press offices unless a subpoena was shown to be impractical and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In the Supreme Court Justice Byron White argued that the Fourth Amendment did not provide special search provisions for press offices. He rejected the argument that the search interfered with the Daily's sources and created a chilling atmosphere that would contribute to self-censorship. He held that requiring a subpoena prior to authorization of a search warrant would undermine law enforcement efforts.

Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting for himself and Justice Thurgood Marshall, concluded that, under these circumstances, the warrant impermissibly burdened freedom of the press because it threatened physical disruption of newspaper operations and might force disclosure of confidential sources essential to news gathering. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the search did not meet the Fourth Amendment's standards for reasonableness because the newspaper was not itself under suspicion.

The Zurcher ruling caused a furor in the press community and led to congressional passage of a provision in the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 limiting the use of search warrants in newsrooms where neither the organization nor its members were suspected of wrongdoing.

— Carol E. Jenson

• 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
• Vote: 5–3
• For the Court: White
• Dissenting: Stewart, Marshall, and Stevens
• Not participating: Brennan

In April 1971 a group of demonstrators seized the administrative offices of Stanford University Hospital. They blocked entrances and would not permit people to move freely through the facility. The Palo Alto city police confronted the demonstrators and a riot resulted. Several police officers were injured. The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper, published a report of the riot that included pictures.

The identities of the rioters could not be determined from the pictures published in the newspaper. The police, however, thought the photographer might have other picture in his office that could be used to identify some of the rioters. They obtained a warrant and searched the offices of the Stanford Daily, but they found no additional pictures. However, while they searched for pictures the police saw confidential papers in the newspaper's files. These papers included information about the management of the newspaper and the personal activities of students.

The Stanford Daily brought suit against the police. The student publishers claimed that the police's search of their offices violated their constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments.

The Issue

The students argued that a reasonable police search of a newspaper office should be based on a subpoena, not a warrant. A subpoena is an order requiring a person to appear before a court of law. A subpoena issued by a local court would have required representatives of the student newspaper to submit to police, for their examination, any pictures in their possession about the riot. This procedure, the students said, would have eliminated the possibility of police seeing confidential documents in their files not related to the purpose of the search. The city government replied that the warrant was legally obtained and the subsequent search properly conducted.

Was there a violation of the student newspaper's 4th Amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches? And did the case involve a violation of the 1st Amendment guarantee of a free press?

Opinion of the Court

Justice Byron White ruled against the Stanford Daily. He referred to the intentions of those who proposed and ratified the federal Bill of Rights: they did not, he wrote, “forbid warrants where the press was involved.” Justice White emphasized that the press should not have special privileges with regard to the authorization of search warrants. Further, he contended that requiring a subpoena before the issuance of a search warrant would unduly interfere with effective enforcement of the law.

Dissent

Justice Potter Stewart argued that the search without a subpoena was a violation of 1st and 4th Amendment rights because police were able to examine sensitive papers having no relationship to the purpose of the search. This kind of invasion of privacy, wrote Stewart, could intimidate newspaper publishers and thereby interfere with freedom of the press.

Significance

The Zurcher decision prompted Congress to pass the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. This law prohibits federal government agents from carrying out searches and seizures in newspaper offices on “work-product materials unless the reporter or writer is suspected of committing a crime or there is some life-threatening situation.” This federal law does not apply to state or local police, however. Thus the Zurcher ruling stands as a legal precedent..

See also Freedom of speech and press; Searches and seizures