Groh v. Ramirez

540 U.S. 551 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps live on a large ranch in Montana. D is a Special Agent for ATF since 1989. In 1997, a concerned citizen informed D that on a number of visits to Ps’ ranch the visitor had seen a large stock of weaponry, including an automatic rifle, grenades, a grenade launcher, and a rocket launcher. D prepared and signed an application for a warrant to search the ranch. The search was for “any automatic firearms or parts to automatic weapons, 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.” D also prepared a detailed affidavit that set forth the basis for his belief that the listed items were concealed on the ranch. D presented these documents to a Magistrate, along with a warrant form that D also had completed. The Magistrate signed the warrant form. The application particularly described the place to be searched and the contraband petitioner expected to find but failed to identify any of the items that D intended to seize. The warrant did not incorporate by reference the itemized list contained in the application. It did recite that the Magistrate was satisfied the affidavit established probable cause to believe that contraband was concealed on the premises and that sufficient grounds existed for the warrant’s issuance. D led a team to search the premises. D states that he orally described the objects of the search to Mrs. Ramirez in person and D by telephone. They uncovered no illegal weapons or explosives. D gave Mrs. Ramirez a copy of the search warrant, but not a copy of the application, which had been sealed. The next day, D then faxed P's attorney a copy of the page of the application that listed the items to be seized. No charges were filed against Ps. Ps sued D under Bivens raising eight claims, including violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court entered summary judgment for all Ds. It found that no Fourth Amendment violation and that even if it did, Ds were entitled to qualified immunity because the failure of the warrant to describe the objects of the search amounted to a mere “typographical error.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with respect to all Ds and all claims, with the exception of respondents’ Fourth Amendment claim against D. It held that the warrant was invalid because it did not “describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized,” and that oral statements by petitioner during or after the search could not cure the omission.