The main issue which revolved around the controversy of Wilson v. Layne, 119 S. Ct. 1692, ("Wilson v. Layne," 1998a; "Wilson v. Layne," 2003) was the concern with regard to the permission given to the media by the law enforcement officers upon the implementation of a rummage around merit in the clandestine home of the Wilsons (pp. 799).
The fact which struck the alarming incident dwelled on the instance that the suspect, Dominic Wilson, was not actually residing in the intruded residence, further, the officers later realized that he was not really present in the searched domicile (Chun, 2000). The suspect’s parents were the ones disturbed by the “unreasonable” search ("Wilson v. Layne," 1998a) urging them to anon sue the law enforcers with Bivens and 42 U. S. C. § 1983, to serve as their petition against the interference in their property and privacy.
However, the plaintiff’s litigation pertaining to the “damage” which they prudently believe to be a violation in their constitutional rights as stated in the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized ("Fourth Amendment," 2007; "Wilson v. Layne," 1998b).
In the light, the protection vested to citizens are coherent with the substance found in a common law established in England that, “the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose. (pp. 801)” With that given decree, it is evident that there had been violations committed by the defendants.
In addition to that, the prosecuting body of the plaintiff had been reasonable upon stating that the violations filed against the law enforcers has crossed beyond the bounds rested on the warrant, and the appearance of the third party, the media, therefore, is conceivably way beyond the license for the lawful act. Consequently, orbiting on the realm of Bivens “warrantless entry and search ("Wilson v. Layne," 1998a),” as well as with 42 U. S. C.
1983 “tonic for the breach of federally-protected rights by governments and its employees (Chun, 2000),” are constitutionally following the limits and the just compensation over the spoils and violations caused by the infringement committed by the federals. On the other hand, the seemingly explicit surfacing of the evidences laid on the table of the case had been opposed by the defendants’ prosecutors and thus labeling the “unclear establishment” of the Fourth Amendment and accordingly emphasizing the vagueness of the act lingering on the arena of “media participation”
They defended that they have been unconscious of the media’s presence and that the appearance of the Washington media reporter and photographer was not a part of their “arrest scheme” and for whatsoever purpose that the media was there is way beyond their intent. Media constraint and regulation analysis indeed made clarifications on their duty, apparently giving boldness on the perception that “it is the right of the public to know, and their freedom expressed in press broadcast did not cross the line of law (Chun, 2000).
”However, the plaintiff’s stand belligerently opposed the refute thus stating with the intent the “vitality for the Court to consider that the hold orbiting such perception on the Fourth Amendment takes imposition not only to the media, but to any third party wherein such presence is not aided in the implementation of the warrant of arrest ("Wilson v. Layne," 1998a). ”
Wilson v. Layne (FindLaw 1998). Wilson v. Layne. (1998). Criminal Law Summaries Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www. boycott-riaa. com Wilson v. Layne. (2003). Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://nchelp. org Amendment IV to the U. S. Constitution. (2007). Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www. answers. com