Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Groh v. Ramirez

Docket No.: 02-811
Certiorari Granted: Mar 3 2003
Argued: November 4, 2003
Decided: February 24, 2004

Topics:

Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment, Economic Activity, Governmental Liability, Article I, Bivens action, Due Process, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fourth Amendment, absolute immunity, judicial review, patent, privacy, probable cause, qualified immunity, search and seizure, searches and seizures, warrantless search

PartyNames: Jeff Groh v. Joseph R. Ramirez, et al.
Petitioner: Jeff Groh
Respondent: Joseph R. Ramirez, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 298 F.3d 1022. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly rule d that a law enforcement officer violatedclearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by theSupreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law? 2. Whether law enforcement officers viol ate the particularity requirement of theFourth Amendment when they execute a search warrant already approved by a magistrate judge, based on an attached application and affidavit properly describing with particularity the items to be searched and seized, but the warrant itself doesnot include the same level of detail?
Supreme Court Docket

Jeff Groh
v.
Joseph R. Ramirez, et al.
540 U.S. 551 (2004)
Question Presented:

I. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly rule d that a law enforcement officer violatedclearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by theSupreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law? 2. Whether law enforcement officers viol ate the particularity requirement of theFourth Amendment when they execute a search warrant already approved by a magistrate judge, based on an attached application and affidavit properly describingwith particularity the items to be searched and seized, but the warrant itself does not include the same level of detail? CERT. GRANTED: 3/3/03

Question:

If law enforcement officers use a search warrant that does not describe the items sought but is approved by a magistrate judge (and the items sought are described in the application for the warrant), does the search violate the Fourth's Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures? If such a search is unconstitutional, can law enforcement officers be sued for executing the warrants, despite the fact that no court had previously held such a search unconstitutional?

Note:

. CA 9, 298 F.3d 1022.

Groh v. Ramirez
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 4, 2003

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Ramirez, 4 vote(s) against
Opinion By:

Groh v. Ramirez
Case Documents

1Slip Opinion in Groh v. Ramirez
2Opinion in Groh v. Ramirez
3Opinion in Groh v. Ramirez
Additional documents for this case are pending review.