Groh v. Ramirez
United States Supreme Court
540 U.S. 551 (2004)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
In February 1997, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Agent Jeff Groh (defendant) received information that Joseph Ramirez and his family (plaintiffs) had a large number of weapons on their ranch in Montana. Groh presented an application for a warrant to search the ranch for various weapons and documents and a comprehensive supporting affidavit to a Magistrate. The Magistrate signed the warrant form Groh had prepared. The warrant form did not name and describe the items to be seized or incorporate the supporting documents by reference. The supporting documents were not provided to the plaintiffs with the warrant, but Groh did describe the items to be seized to the plaintiffs orally. The plaintiffs filed civil suit against Groh and other police officers, but the district court found no Fourth Amendment violation and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals held that the warrant was invalid because it did not describe the place to be searched and items to be seized.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
