Background/Facts:  In April 1971, a group of demonstrators seized the administrative office of Stanford University Hospital.  They resisted police and eventually incited a riot. The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper, covered the riot and published a report that included photos of rioters.  The pictures were not clear enough to determine the identities of the rioters, however, the police department suspected that there may be other photos that would reveal who the rioters were.  The police obtained a warrant and searched the office of the Stanford Daily.  They found no incriminating photographs, but during the search saw confidential documents concerning the management of the paper and the personal activities of students.  The Stanford Daily brought suit against the police department claiming that the search of their office violated their constitutional rights under the 1^st, 4^th, and 14^th amendments.

Issue/Points of Law:  The students argued that a reasonable police search should be based on a subpoena not a warrant.  They believed this would eliminate the possibility of police seeing unrelated confidential documents.  The city argued that the warrant was legally obtained.  Question the court must answer:  Was there a violation of the student newspaper's 4^th amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches?  And did the case involve a violation of the 1^st amendment guarantee of a free press?

Opinion of the Court:  In a 5:3 vote, with Justice Byron White writing the majority opinion, the court ruled against the Stanford Daily.  White referred to the original intent of those who drafted the Bill of Rights; they did not, he writes, "forbid warrants where the press was involved."  He emphasized the press should have o special protection from legally obtained search warrants.  Moreover, he stated, requiring a subpoena would unduly interfere with the process and effective enforcement of law.

Significance:  The decision prompted Congress to crate the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.  This law prohibits federal government agents from carrying out searches and seizures in newspaper offices unless the reporter or writer is suspected of committing a crime or there is some life-threatening situation.  This law does not apply to state or local police, however, and the Zurcher case has stood as a legal precedent.