|
United States v. Grubb, 547 U.S. ___, slip
op. 04-1414 (3/21/06)
Anticipatory Search Warrant Valid Though
Triggering Event Not Included in Warrant. The United States Supreme Court held that
an anticipatory search warrant, that described the triggering
event for
execution in the affidavit, but not the warrant or the
attached schedules that were given to the suspect at
the residence, still met the particularity requirement of
the 4th Amendment.
United States v. Grubbs, involved a controlled
delivery of a videotape containing child pornography to
Grubbs.
Grubbs had ordered the videotape off an internet site
run by a postal inspector for purposes of investigating
child pornography. Based on Grubb’s order, a search
warrant and affidavit was prepared. The affidavit described
the triggering event for executing this anticipatory warrant.
The triggering event was described as the delivery of
the video to a person at the residence and the taking
of the video into the residence. The warrant itself did
not list the triggering event, nor did two schedules that
were attached to the warrant.
The videotape was delivered
to the residence. The tape was accepted by Jeffrey Grubbs’ wife and taken into
the house. Jeffrey Grubbs was detained when he left the
house a short time later and the search warrant was executed.
Mr. Grubbs was given a copy of the warrant as well as copies
of the attached schedules. He was not given a copy of the
affidavit. Following his indictment, Jeffrey Grubbs sought
suppression of the evidence found in his home arguing that
the warrant and schedules, which did not contain the triggering
information for this anticipatory warrant did not meet the
4th Amendment’s particularity requirement. The United
States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit agreed with Grubbs,
which led to the appeal before the United States Supreme
Court.
The United States Supreme Court overturned
the decision of the 9th Circuit in ruling that the search
warrant at
issue met the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment.
At the outset, the Court held that anticipatory search
warrants are Constitutional under the 4th Amendment.
In the
opinion, the Court pointed out that the 4th Amendment
does not have some general particularity requirement for
warrants. The particularity requirement is very specific.
Law enforcement must particularly describe the place they
are seeking to search and they must particularly describe
the items they are seeking to seize. The Court concluded
that there is no requirement in the constitution that
the “condition
precedent” or the “triggering event” of
an anticipatory warrant, be particularly described in the
warrant itself.
|
Details & Ordering
Contents:
The ninth edition of Criminal Law for Police Officers presents the historical concepts fundamental to understanding criminal law. The book is written in a non-legalese format, which makes it very student friendly. Areas covered include jurisdiction, matters of responsibility and accountability, and general principles about the criminal act.
Details & Ordering
|
