The War On News

A record of government actions against journalism and fact-based reporting, from the first press laws to today

Incident

United States police search a student newspaper's offices for photographs of a protest

United StatesRSF 2026 rank: 64th of 180

Engraving of an empty press briefing room with a lectern and rows of chairs

On April 12, 1971, Palo Alto police searched the newsroom of The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper, for photographs of a clash between demonstrators and police at Stanford University Hospital, though no member of the paper's staff was suspected of a crime. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5 to 3 on May 31, 1978, that the search did not violate the First or Fourth Amendments.12

What happened

Late in the day on April 9, 1971, officers of the Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department responded to a call from the director of Stanford University Hospital in California asking them to remove demonstrators who had occupied the hospital's administrative offices since the previous afternoon. Nine police officers were hurt in the resulting confrontation. The next day, The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, published photographs of the clash. On April 12, 1971, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office obtained a warrant from a municipal court to search the Daily's offices for photographs and negatives that might identify people involved in the felonies of "battery on a peace officer" and "assault with a deadly weapon." Four police officers searched the newsroom's photo laboratory, filing cabinets, desks and wastebaskets that day, though the warrant did not allege that any Daily staff member had committed a crime, and the search turned up nothing beyond photographs the paper had already published. The Daily sued the police and prosecutors, arguing the search violated the First and Fourth Amendments. On May 31, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5 to 3 that a search warrant for a newsroom not itself suspected of a crime was constitutional.123456

What reason was given

Stated justification

The warrant was issued on a finding that photographs and film relevant to the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, "battery on a peace officer" and "assault with a deadly weapon," would be found on the Daily's premises.3

What changed for reporting

The warrant affidavit did not allege that any member of the Daily's staff had committed a crime, and the search itself turned up nothing beyond the photographs the newspaper had already published.45

Timeline

1971

12 April 1971
United States police search a student newspaper's offices for photographs of a protest

Who acted

NameRole in this incidentOffice at the time
Byron WhiteruledAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
James ZurcherenforcedChief of Police, Palo Alto, California
Louis P. BergnaorderedDistrict Attorney, Santa Clara County, California

Outlets and journalists

NameKindRelation
The Stanford Dailyoutletaffected

Sources

  1. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31, primary. Source record
  2. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009, reporting. Source record

Claims and evidence

Each numbered claim quotes the source it rests on.

  1. Police responded on April 9, 1971, to a call from Stanford University Hospital's director asking them to remove demonstrators who had occupied the hospital's administrative offices since the previous afternoon.Late in the day on Friday, April 9, 1971, officers of the Palo Alto Police Department and of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department responded to a call from the director of the Stanford University Hospital requesting the removal of a large group of demonstratorsZurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31.Claim 804, checked 2026-09-26.
  2. Four police officers searched The Stanford Daily's newsroom on April 12, 1971, in the presence of some of the paper's staff.The search pursuant to the warrant was conducted later that day by four police officers and took place in the presence of some members of the Daily staff.Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31.Claim 805, checked 2026-09-26.
  3. The search warrant was issued on a finding that photographs and film relevant to identifying the perpetrators of felonies, "battery on a peace officer" and "assault with a deadly weapon," would be found on the newspaper's premises.relevant to the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, to wit, Battery on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly Weapon, will be locatedZurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31.Claim 806, checked 2026-09-26.
  4. The warrant affidavit contained no allegation that any member of the Daily's staff had committed a crime at the hospital.The warrant affidavit contained no allegation or indication that members of the Daily staff were in any way involved in unlawful acts at the hospital.Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31.Claim 807, checked 2026-09-26.
  5. The First Amendment Encyclopedia reported that the search of the newsroom failed to turn up any evidence beyond the originals of the photographs the paper had already published.a search of the newsroom failed to turn up any evidence beyond the originals of the published photos.Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 808, checked 2026-09-26.
  6. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3, in an opinion by Justice Byron White, that searches of the property of innocent third parties, including the press, are permissible when police have probable cause.The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 opinion authored by Justice Byron R.White , held that searches of the property of innocent third parties, including the press, are permissibleZurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 809, checked 2026-09-26.