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

Published 2026-09-26. Last reviewed 2026-09-26. 2 sources.

Status: historical, as of 2026-09-26.

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.[1][2]

- Country: [United States](https://thewaronnews.com/countries/us) (RSF 2026 rank: 64th of 180)
- Where: United States
- Level of government: Municipal
- Tactic: Surveillance and subpoenas
- Stage: Pressure (ladder: https://thewaronnews.com/ladders/surveillance_and_subpoenas#stage-pressure)
- Head of government at the time: [Ronald Reagan](https://thewaronnews.com/leaders/ronald-reagan)
- Issue of the day: A confrontation between police and demonstrators occupying Stanford University Hospital's administrative offices had injured nine officers, and prosecutors wanted photographs the student newspaper had taken of the clash to identify people involved.
- Outcome: Upheld by a court, 31 May 1978. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5 to 3 that the search of the Daily's newsroom did not violate the First or Fourth Amendments.
- Era: The 1970s

## 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.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

## What reason was given

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.[4][5]

## Timeline

- 1971-04-12: United States police search a student newspaper's offices for photographs of a protest

## Who acted

| Name | Role in this incident | Office at the time |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Byron White](https://thewaronnews.com/actors/byron-white) | ruled | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States |
| [James Zurcher](https://thewaronnews.com/actors/james-zurcher) | enforced | Chief of Police, Palo Alto, California |
| [Louis P. Bergna](https://thewaronnews.com/actors/louis-bergna) | ordered | District Attorney, Santa Clara County, California |

## Outlets and journalists

| Name | Kind | Relation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [The Stanford Daily](https://thewaronnews.com/outlets/stanford-daily) | outlet | affected |

## Sources

1. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/547 (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31).
2. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978). https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zurcher-v-stanford-daily/ (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009).

## Claims cited

[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. Quote: "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 demonstrators" Source: Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/547 Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/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. Quote: "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." Source: Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/547 Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/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. Quote: "relevant to the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, to wit, Battery on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly Weapon, will be located" Source: Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/547 Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/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. Quote: "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." Source: Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1978-05-31. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/547 Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/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. Quote: "a search of the newsroom failed to turn up any evidence beyond the originals of the published photos." Source: The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978). https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zurcher-v-stanford-daily/ Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/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. Quote: "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 permissible" Source: The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978). https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/zurcher-v-stanford-daily/ Claim: https://thewaronnews.com/claims/809, checked 2026-09-26.

Source page: https://thewaronnews.com/incidents/1971-us-zurcher-stanford-daily-newsroom-search. The War On News, CC BY 4.0.