United States v. Grubbs
| United States v. Grubbs | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 18, 2006 Decided March 21, 2006 | |
| Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Grubbs |
| Docket no. | 04-1414 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 90 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1494; 164 L. Ed. 2d 195; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2496; 74 U.S.L.W. 4173; 31 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 635; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant's motion to suppress denied, E.D. Cal.; reversed, 377 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.); opinion amended, rehearing denied, rehearing en banc denied, 389 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 34 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| An anticipatory warrant was not defective under the Fourth Amendment for failing to list the "triggering condition" necessary for its execution, because a warrant only needs to describe with particularity the place or person to be searched and the items to be seized. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (Parts I and II) |
| Concurrence | Souter (in part), joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.
In this particular decision, which arose from a federal child pornography prosecution, the Court ruled that a warrant that was predicated on the undercover delivery of a videotape to the defendant's home, but did not state this on its face, was properly issued and executed because it described the place to be searched and the objects to be seized, and the search was conducted after the delivery was made. Evidence seized from the defendant's house from that search was therefore admissible in court against him.