Skip to content
Name: Groh v. Ramirez
Case #: 02-811
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 02/24/2004
Subsequent History: cross cites: 124 S. Ct. 1284; 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068

Where a search warrant failed to describe with any particularity the items to be seized, the warrant was facially invalid and the search pursuant to that warrant was unreasonable. The warrant here did not even mention the items intended to be seized, and the fact that the application for the warrant did describe those items did not render the search reasonable. Further, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer would have believed that the warrant was valid.