## Facts

- An ATF agent received an informant tip that a Montana ranch contained illegal weapons and explosives (e.g., automatic rifle, grenades, grenade launcher, rocket launcher).
- The agent prepared a warrant application listing the items to be seized and submitted it with a detailed supporting affidavit to a federal magistrate judge.
- The warrant form the agent completed and presented was signed by the magistrate, but the warrant itself mistakenly described only the residence in the section for items to be seized.
- The warrant did not list any items to be seized and did not incorporate the application or affidavit by reference.
- The agent led a team of federal and local officers in searching the ranch; no illegal weapons or explosives were found.
- The agent left the occupants a copy of the defective warrant, not the application or affidavit.
- The occupants sued under *Bivens* and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment violation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The court of appeals held the warrant invalid for lack of particularity and denied qualified immunity to the agent who prepared and executed it.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrant that fails on its face to describe the persons or things to be seized satisfies the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement when an accompanying application or affidavit contains the description.
2. Whether the officer who prepared and executed such a warrant is entitled to qualified immunity because a magistrate approved the warrant and the defect was arguably technical.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was plainly invalid for failing to describe the items to be seized.
- The Court treated the search as unreasonable because it proceeded under a warrant that did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.
- The Court held the supporting application and affidavit did not cure the defect because the warrant did not incorporate them by reference and they were not provided to the occupants during the search.
- The Court denied qualified immunity to the agent, concluding no reasonable officer could believe a warrant lacking any description of items to be seized was valid, especially when the executing officer drafted it.
- The Court rejected reliance on the magistrate’s signature as a defense where the warrant’s deficiency was obvious on its face.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant particularly describe both the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
- A warrant that omits any description of items to be seized is facially invalid and cannot be saved by unincorporated supporting documents.
- The particularity requirement serves to limit officers’ discretion and to inform the occupant of the lawful scope of the search.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable when the constitutional requirement is clearly established and the officer’s conduct is objectively unreasonable; a magistrate’s approval does not immunize execution of an obviously defective warrant.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that a warrant must itself (or by explicit incorporation) specify what may be seized; a search under a warrant that lists nothing to be seized violates the Fourth Amendment, and the officer who drafted and executed the defective warrant is not protected by qualified immunity.


Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004)