GROH v RAMIREZ

February 24, 2004 | Justice Stevens | Certiorari | Procedure for Issuance of a Search Warrant

PETITIONER:Jeff Groh
RESPONDENT: Joseph Ramirez and his family
SUMMARY: Groh, in order to search the Ramirez familys ranch, prepared an
application for a search warrant that particularly described the things to be seized, a
detailed affidavit, and the warrant form that didnt describe the things to be seized.
Judge signed it. Ramirez family sues Groh for violating their 4
th
Amendment rights.
SC: 4
th
Am violated since warrant did not describe in particularity the objects to be
seized; Groh not entitled to qualified immunity.
DOCTRINE: 4
th
Amendment requirements for a warrant: (1) based on probable
cause (2) supported by sworn affidavit (3) described particularly the place of the
search and (4) the things to be seized. // The Judge, interposed between the citizen
and the police, serves as an objective mind who weighs the need to invade the
citizens privacy in order to enforce the law. The particularity reauirement also
assures the individual whose property is search and seized of the executing officers
legal authority, his need to search, and the limits of his power to do so.

FACTS:
1. A concerned citizen approached Groh (Special Agent of
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and informied
him that he had seen a large stock of weaponry (including
an automatic rifle, grenades, grenade launcher, and rocket
launcher) at the Montana ranch of the Ramirez family.
Based on that, Groh prepared:
Application for a Search Warrant to the Ranch signed;
stated that the search was for any automatic firearms or
parts to automatic werapons, destructive devices to
include but not limited to grenades, grenade launchers,
rocket launchers, and any and all receipts pertaining to
the purchase or manufacture of automatic weapons or
explosive devices or launchers.
Detailed Affidavit set forth the basis for his belief that
the listed items were concealed on the ranch
Warrant form Less specific than the application and
failed to identify any of the items that Groh intended to
seize. Only included a description of the Ramirez
familys 2-story blue house. It didnt incorporate by
reference the itemized list contained in the application.
Recited that the Judge was satisfied that the affidavit
established probable cause to believe that the contraband
was concealed on the premises, and that sufficient
grounds existed for the warrants issuance
2. Upon presentment of the 3 documents, Judge signed the
warrant form. The day after, Groh led a team of law
enforcement officers. Since Joseph Ramirez was not
present, Groh orally described to Mrs. Ramirez that he was
searching for an explosive device in a box. The search
yielded no illegal weapons or explosives. Groh gave Mrs.
Ramirez a copy of the search warrant, but not a copy of the
pplication, which had been sealed. The Ramirez family
then sued petitioner and the other officers for violating the
4
th
Amendment.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the search violated the 4
th
Amendment YES.
2. WON Groh is entitled to qualified immunity NO.

RULING: CA Decision affirmed. 4
th
Amendment violated.

RATIO:
1. Warrant Plainly Invalid: The warrant failed to meet the
4
th
Amendments clear requirement that a warrant
particularly describe the persons or things to be seized
since it didnt describe items to be seized at all, and is so
facially deficient that it must be deemed warrantless and
hence presumptive unreasonable. This presumptive rule
applies to searches whose only defect is a lack of
particularity in the warrant.The fact that the application
adequately described those things does not save the
warrant, since it wasnt referred to by the warrant.
2. Judges Role: Gro claims that they should be exempt
from the presumption since they satisfied the particularity
requirements goals (i.e. avoid a general warrant). But
unless items in the affidavit are set forth in the warrant,
there is no written assurance that the magistrate actually
found probable cause for a search as broad as the affiant
requested. The Judge, interposed between the citizen and
the police, serves as an objective mind who weighs the
need to invade the citizens privacy in order to enforce the
law. The particularity requirement also assures the
individual whose property is searched and seized of the
executing officers legal authority, his need to search, and
the limits of his power to do so. And in this case, the
limits of the actual search was imposed by the agents
themselves, not by a judicial officer.
3. Groh not Entitled to Qualified Immunity: The test is
WON its clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct
was unlawful. In this case, the particularity requirement is
stated in the Constitutions text, and so no reasonable
officer could believe that a warrant that did not comply
with that requirement was valid. And since Groh himself
prepared the warrant, he cant argue that he reasonably
relied on the Magistrates assurance that it contained an
adequate description and was valid. A warrant may be so
facially deficient, as in this case, that the executing
officers cant reasonably presume it to be valid.