(99) Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S.

547 (1978)
Facts:
Respondents, a student newspaper that had published articles and photographs
of a clash between demonstrators and police at a hospital, and staff members, brought
this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against, among others, petitioners, law enforcement
and district attorney personnel, claiming that a search pursuant to a warrant issued on a
judge's finding of probable cause that the newspaper (which was not involved in the
unlawful acts) possessed photographs and negatives revealing the identities of
demonstrators who had assaulted police officers at the hospital had deprived
respondents of their constitutional rights. The District Court granted declaratory relief,
holding that the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth
forbade the issuance of a warrant to search for materials in possession of one not
suspected of crime unless there is probable cause, based on facts presented in a sworn
affidavit, to believe that a subpoena duces tecum would be impracticable. Failure to
honor the subpoena would not, alone, justify issuance of a warrant; it would also have to
appear that the possessor of the objects sought would disregard a court order not to
remove or destroy them. The court also held that, where the innocent object of the
search is a newspaper, First Amendment interests make the search constitutionally
permissible "only in the rare circumstance where there is a clear showing that (1)
important materials will be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction; and (2) a
restraining order would be futile."
The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue: Whether or not the State is prevented by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments from issuing a warrant to search for evidence

Held:
A State is not prevented by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from
issuing a warrant to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of the
place to be searched is not reasonably suspected of criminal involvement. The critical
element in a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime, but
that there is reasonable cause to believe that the "things" to be searched for and seized
are located on the property to which entry is sought. Pp. 436 U. S. 553-560.
The District Court's new rule denying search warrants against third parties and
insisting on subpoenas would undermine law enforcement efforts, since search
warrants are often used early in an investigation before all the perpetrators of a crime
have been identified, and the seemingly blameless third party may be implicated. The
delay in employing a subpoena duces tecum could easily result in disappearance of the
evidence. Nor would the cause of privacy be served, since search warrants are more
difficult to obtain than subpoenas. Pp. 436 U. S. 560-563.
Properly administered, the preconditions for a search warrant (probable cause,
specificity with respect to the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and
overall reasonableness), which must be applied with particular exactitude when First
Amendment interests would be endangered by the search, are adequate safeguards
against the interference with the press' ability to gather, analyze, and disseminate news
that respondents claim would ensue from use of warrants for third-party searches of
newspaper offices. Pp. 436 U. S. 563-567.