In the 1998 case of Charles H. Wilson, et ux., et al. v. Harry Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, etc., et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of homeowners when they allowed media into a private home during the execution of a search warrant without consent from homeowners. The court held that while there may be circumstances where police can invite media to accompany them for legitimate law enforcement purposes such as publicizing crime prevention efforts or locating other victims or suspects; this does not extend to inviting media into someone's home during an active search operation without their permission. This decision was based on privacy concerns and it clarified that government officials could be sued for damages by individuals whose constitutional rights were violated in this manner.

In the dissenting opinion for Charles H. Wilson, et ux., et al. v. Harry Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, etc., et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to deny qualified immunity to law enforcement officers was incorrect and could potentially have negative implications on future cases involving police conduct. He contended that at the time of their actions in 1992, it wasn't clearly established by law whether media presence during a search would violate Fourth Amendment rights or not; hence they should be granted qualified immunity as per existing precedent which protects officials from liability unless they violated "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known about.