CheckPoint Judicial Review/Judicial Precedent “Judicial review is defined as the power of any court to hold unconstitutional and hence unenforceable any, any official action based on a law, or any other action by a public official that it deems to be in conflict with the Constitution” (Carmen, 2010, p. 25). Judicial review has the option to reverse or overturn any decision made based on the violations or disagreements that the Constitution may have. This allows the courts to review, modify, or change the laws.
This case involves judicial review because the state of the law did not indicate a reason for the presence of the reporters was required at the execution of the search warrant. The presence of the media was not listed or indicated anywhere upon the search warrant. The officers’ invited the reporter and the photographer to the home as a part of their ride-along program. The photographer took photos inside the home, but they were never published in the newspaper.
Judicial precedent is defined as a decision of the court that is used as a source for decision –making in the future. Judicial precedent is only used in cases similar to the one presented that include facts and is within that court’s jurisdiction (Carmen, 2010).
This case involves judicial precedent because the Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the search. At the execution of the warrant the officers’ did not believe that allowing the media to enter the home was lawful. In some instances media coverage is necessary for the protection of the officers and the public. The suspect in indicated on the warrant had violated probation and could have been armed. The need for the media to be present was not an unreasonable request of the officers.
The petitioners sued the officers for monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents and §1983 (Findlaw, 2012).

Works Cited
Carmen, R. V. (2010). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Findlaw. (2012, January 01). Retrieved September 07, 2012, from Findlaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=526&page=603#603