Citation network
United States Vs. Grubbs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 2006
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 United States V. GrubbsSearch
-
the particularity requirement does not include the conditions precedent to execution of the warrant. Cf. Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. United States v. GrubbsSearch
-
Opinion of the Court United States V. GrubbsSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-1414 United States, Petitioner V. JeffreySearch
-
United States v. HotalSearch
-
We reject this view, as has every Court of Appeals to confront the issue, see, e.g. , United States v. LoySearch
-
for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be there when the warrant is executed. See People v. GlenSearch
-
The anticipatory nature of warrants is even clearer in the context of electronic surveillance. See, e.g. , Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. RicciardelliSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F. 2d 699, 702 (CA2 1989) (quoting United States v. LoweSearch
-
quoting Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
We have previously rejected efforts to expand the scope of this provision to embrace unenumerated matters. In Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. , at 255 (quoting Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
Id. , at 19 (quoting United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
F. 3d, at 1079 (quoting Ramirez v. Butte-SilverSearch
-
the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure imposes such a requirement. See Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
United States v. StefonekSearch
-
Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
what the Fourth Amendment requires of anticipatory search warrants if it does not allow them at all. Cf. Wilkinson v. AustinSearch
-
learn, for instance, that contraband is no longer located at the place to be searched. See, e.g. , United States v. BowlingSearch
-
in view of the time that has passed since the warrant was issued. See United States v. WagnerSearch
-
see also Sgro v. UnitedSearch
-
Opinion of Souter, J. United States V. GrubbsSearch
-
s responsibility to respect the limits of authorization, see Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
s faulty judgment or sloppy practice, see Massachusetts v. SheppardSearch
-
to see why the government should not be held to the condition despite the unconditional face of the warrant. Cf. Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
in Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 9 (1977), quoted in Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
Cf. Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
United States, Petitioner V. JeffreySearch
-
United States v. HotalSearch
-
United States v. LoySearch
-
See People v. GlenSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RicciardelliSearch
-
United States v. LoweSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
In Dalia v. UnitedSearch
-
Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
Ramirez v. Butte-SilverSearch
-
See Groh v. RamirezSearch
-
Cf. Wilkinson v. AustinSearch
-
See United States v. WagnerSearch
-
Sgro v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial