Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Berger v. Hanlon

129 F.3d 505 (1997)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Berger v. Hanlon

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

129 F.3d 505 (1997)

Facts

In 1993, federal law-enforcement authorities entered a written agreement with Cable News Network, Inc., and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (media) that permitted the media to accompany federal agents (agents) executing a warrant to search the ranch of Paul and Erma Berger (plaintiffs) for evidence of possible environmental crimes. The media sought footage of the search for their television programs, and the federal government welcomed the publicity this would bring to its crime-fighting efforts. The Bergers alleged the agents gave the media information about the warrant that was supposed to remain under seal until the search was completed. The media videotaped a pre-search gathering of agents discussing the execution of the warrant, and the media’s cameras recorded a caravan of the agents’ vehicles approaching the Bergers’ ranch. One of the agents was equipped with a hidden microphone, which transmitted a live audio feed to the media of the agent’s conversation with the Bergers. The Bergers were not told that the agent was wearing a microphone or that the video cameras visible during the search were the media’s. At times, the agents engaged in tough talk with the Bergers, which appeared to be mainly for entertainment purposes. The Bergers filed a Bivens claim against the agents and the media, asserting that (1) the agents violated the Bergers’ Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the media to record the search and helping the media obtain dramatic material; and (2) the media, as government actors, should be liable for that violation. The district court ruled that the agents had qualified immunity and that the media were not government actors for Bivens purposes. The Bergers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Schroeder, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership