Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

United States v. Jeffrey Grubbs

United States Supreme Court
547 U.S. 90 (2006)


Facts

A federal postal inspector set up an undercover website in a sting operation intended to catch purchasers of child pornography. Grubbs (defendant) ordered a video from the website. A postal inspector applied for a search warrant. The affidavit stated that the warrant would only be executed once the package containing the video had been accepted by someone at Grubbs’ residence. Two attachments to the affidavit provided information describing Grubbs’ home and the type of evidence the inspectors anticipated finding. After the package was delivered, the inspectors executed a search of Grubbs’ home. The inspectors served the warrant on Grubbs about 30 minutes into the search. The warrant included the attachments describing Grubbs’ home and the anticipated evidence, but the affidavit describing the conditions that would trigger execution of the warrant was not attached. Grubbs was arrested and ordered to appear before a grand jury on charges of receiving child pornography. Grubbs moved to exclude the search evidence and argued that the warrant was invalid because it did not contain the affidavit describing the conditions that would trigger execution. The motion was denied and Grubbs pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the motion denial. The federal court of appeals reversed Grubbs’ conviction. The court of appeals held that an anticipatory warrant is invalid if the affidavit describing the conditions triggering execution is not provided to the person whose property is subject to search. The United States (plaintiff) petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Souter, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 168,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.