Citation network
Groh Vs. Ramirez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Supreme Court of the United States Groh V. RamirezSearch
-
a copy of the warrant, but not the application, with respondents. Respondents sued petitioner and others under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The court also concluded that United States v. LeonSearch
-
Saucier v. KatzSearch
-
a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined, and in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined as to Part III. Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-811 Jeff Groh, Petitioner V. JosephSearch
-
Ramirez v. Butte-SilverSearch
-
No charges were filed against the Ramirezes. Respondents sued petitioner and the other officers under Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
were protected by qualified immunity. With respect to petitioner, the court read our opinion in United States v. LeonSearch
-
Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant, not in the supporting documents. See Massachusetts v. SheppardSearch
-
see also United States v. StefonekSearch
-
McDonald v. UnitedSearch
-
words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant. See, e.g. , United States v. McGrewSearch
-
United States v. BlakeneySearch
-
United States v. MaxwellSearch
-
United States v. RocheSearch
-
cf . Maryland v. GarrisonSearch
-
Steele v. UnitedSearch
-
Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 533 U. S. 27 , 31 (2001) (quoting Silverman v. UnitedSearch
-
Payton v. NewSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional. Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
United States v. CardwellSearch
-
United States v. CrozierSearch
-
United States v. GardnerSearch
-
United States v. MartiSearch
-
Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
See Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
files and papers for receipts pertaining to the purchase or manufacture of such items. Cf. Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 9 (1977) (citing Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
of City and County of San Francisco , 387 U. S. 523 , 532 (1967)), abrogated on other grounds, California v. AcevedoSearch
-
U. S. 565 (1991). See also Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
Anderson v. LibertySearch
-
we turn to the question whether petitioner is entitled to qualified immunity despite that violation. See Wilson v. LayneSearch
-
officer could believe that a warrant that plainly did not comply with that requirement was valid. See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
that our case law requires more than negligent behavior before depriving an official of qualified immunity. See Malley v. BriggsSearch
-
argument that any constitutional error was committed by the Magistrate, not petitioner, is misplaced. In Massachusetts v. SheppardSearch
-
on a warrant that was so patently defective, even if the Magistrate was aware of the deficiency. See United States v. LeonSearch
-
it will be impracticable or imprudent for the officers to show the warrant in advance. See Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Bivens v. SixSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial