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