In Wilson v. Layne, the Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they allow members of the media to accompany them into a private home during the execution of a search warrant. Nevertheless, the Court held that the officers in Layne were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity because the violated right was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation. The note agrees that officers' actions violated the Fourth Amendment; the media presence went beyond the clearly stated bounds of the warrant. The note argues, however, that the Court erroneously held that the officers were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. It claims that the law was "clearly established" at the time of the violation; a reasonable officer should have known that the actions at issue would constitute a violation of the well-established principles of the Fourth Amendment. The note claims that: (1) the Court ignored its previous holdings that a right can be "clearly established" even in the absence of a prior factually indistinguishable case holding the conduct at issue unlawful; (2) testimony of the respondents made apparent their knowledge that civilian entry into homes is simply "not allowed"; and (3) two of the three Federal appellate courts that decided this same question of qualified immunity came to a conclusion opposite that of the majority in Layne. Notes