How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask P. Simmons Your Own Question
P. Simmons
P. Simmons, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 33313
Experience:  16 yrs. of experience including criminal law.
11181181
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
P. Simmons is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

what are the elements of the case wilson v. layne (1999) that

Customer Question

what are the elements of the case wilson v. layne (1999) that fall under judical review and judical precedent
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  P. Simmons replied 8 years ago.
Here is the synopses

When respondent law enforcement officials entered petitioners' home to execute an arrest warrant for petitioners' son, they invited media representatives to accompany them. Respondents entered the home and restrained petitioner husband, but they did not find the fugitive son. The media took photographs, but did not publish them. Petitioners sued respondents in their personal capacities for money damages, contending respondents' action involving the media violated their U.S. Const. amend. IV rights. Petitioners sued federal officials under Bivens, and state officials under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which held that respondents were entitled to qualified immunity. Although the court held that such a "media ride" violated U.S. Const. amend. IV, it found that the state of the law was not clearly established at the time the search took place. It was not obvious from the general principles of U.S. Const. amend. IV that respondents' conduct violated the Constitution, and there were no judicial opinions holding the practice unlawful. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that respondents believed their actions were lawful.


The court affirmed a judgment which held that respondent law enforcement officials were entitled to qualified immunity in petitioners' action for violation of their constitutional rights, because the state of the law regarding presence of the media at the execution of an arrest warrant was not clearly established at the time of execution. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that respondents believed their actions were lawful.





Please let me know if you have further questions; if so I will do my best to answer them. If not please hit the accept button, its the only way I get paid.