GROH V. RAMIREZ Stevens, J.

February 24, 2004 RATIO DECIDENDI: A search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional. QUICK FACTS: etitioner conducted a search of respondents! home pursuant to a warrant that failed to describe the "persons or thin#s to be sei$ed." %. S. &onst., Amdt. 4. 'amire$ sued (roh and others claimin# that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that (roh is not entitled to qualified immunity even if the )a#istrate Jud#e relyin# on an affidavit that particularly described the items in question, found probable cause to conduct the search. FACTS: (roh, a *ureau of Alcohol, +obacco and Firearms a#ent, prepared and si#ned an application for a warrant to search )ontana ranch of 'amire$, which stated that the search was for specified weapons, e,plosives, and records. +he application stated that the search was for "any automatic firearms or parts to automatic weapons, destructive devices to include but not limited to #renades, #renade launchers, roc-et launchers, and any and all receipts pertainin# to the purchase or manufacture of automatic weapons or e,plosive devices or launchers." +he application was supported by petitioner!s detailed affidavit settin# forth his basis for believin# that such items were on the ranch and was accompanied by a warrant form that he completed. +he )a#istrate Jud#e .)a#istrate/ si#ned the warrant form even thou#h it did not identify any of the items that petitioner intended to sei$e. +he portion callin# for a description of the "person or property" described respondents! house, not the alle#ed weapons0 the warrant did not incorporate by reference the application!s itemi$ed list. etitioner led federal and local law enforcement officers to the ranch the ne,t day but found no ille#al weapons or e,plosives. etitioner left a copy of the warrant, but not the application, with respondents. 'espondents sued petitioner and others under *ivens v. Si, %n-nown Fed. 1arcotics A#ents claimin# a Fourth Amendment violation. +he 2istrict &ourt #ranted the defendants summary 3ud#ment, findin# no Fourth Amendment violation, and findin# that even if such a violation occurred, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. +he 1inth &ircuit affirmed e,cept as to the Fourth Amendment claim a#ainst petitioner, holdin# that the warrant was invalid because it did not describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be sei$ed. +he court also concluded that %nited States v. 4eon precluded qualified immunity for petitioner because he was the leader of a search who did not read the warrant and satisfy himself that he understood its scope and limitations and that it was not obviously defective. ISSUES: 561 the search violated the Fourth Amendment 561 petitioner nevertheless is entitled to qualified immunity, #iven that a )a#istrate Jud#e .)a#istrate/, relyin# on an affidavit that particularly described the items in question, found probable cause to conduct the search

DECISION: 2ecision AFF7')82. Search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. HELD: +he search was clearly "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. .a/ +he warrant was plainly invalid. 7t did not meet the Fourth Amendment!s unambi#uous requirement that a warrant "particularly describ9e: ... the persons or thin#s to be sei$ed." +he fact that the application adequately described those thin#s does not save the warrant0 Fourth Amendment interests are not necessarily vindicated when another document says somethin# about the ob3ects of the search, but that document!s contents are neither -nown to the person whose home is bein# searched nor available for her inspection. .b/ etitioner!s ar#ument that the search was nonetheless reasonable is re3ected. *ecause the warrant did not describe the items at all, it was so obviously deficient that the search must be re#arded as warrantless, and thus presumptively unreasonable. +his presumptive rule applies to searches whose only defect is a lac- of particularity in the warrant. etitioner errs in ar#uin# that such searches should be e,empt from the presumption if they otherwise satisfy the particularity requirement!s #oals. %nless items in the affidavit are set forth in the warrant, there is no written assurance that the )a#istrate actually found probable cause for a search as broad as the affiant requested. +he restraint petitioner showed in conductin# the instant search was imposed by the a#ent himself, not a 3udicial officer. +he particularity requirement!s purpose is not limited to preventin# #eneral searches0 it also assures the individual whose property is searched and sei$ed of the e,ecutin# officer!s le#al authority, his need to search, and the limits of his power to do so. +his case presents no occasion to reach petitioner!s ar#ument that the particularity requirements! #oals were served when he orally described the items to respondents, because respondents dispute his account. etitioner is not entitled to qualified immunity despite the constitutional violation because "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." (iven that the particularity requirement is stated in the &onstitution!s te,t, no reasonable officer could believe that a warrant that did not comply with that requirement was valid. *ecause petitioner prepared the warrant, he may not ar#ue that he reasonably relied on the )a#istrate!s assurance that it contained an adequate description and was valid. 1or could a reasonable officer claim to be unaware of the basic rule that, absent consent or e,i#ency, a warrantless search of a home is presumptively unconstitutional. "9A: warrant may be so facially deficient ... that the e,ecutin# officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid."