Wilson v. Layne
- Decided
- May 24, 1999
- Docket
- 98-83
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,678 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Mohamed v. Jones
What later courts said
- holding that, in qualified immunity cases, courts should address whether law was violated prior to determining whether it was clearly established — Tuan Van Tran v. Gary Lindsey, Warden Salinas Valley State Prisons State of California (2000)
- holding that it is improper to dismiss a claim by simply concluding that a constitutional right was not “clearly established” without reaching the antecedent question — Ernest Sutton Bell v. Mack Jarvis Robert Smith (2000)
- holding that the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the offense — Hartley Ex Rel. Hartley v. Parnell (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
While executing an arrest warrant in a private home, police officers invited representatives of the media to accompany them. We hold that such a “media ride-along” does violate the Fourth Amendment, but that because the state [*606] of the law was not clearly established at the time the search in this ease took place, the officers are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.