Facts
- Federal agents conducted an undercover child-pornography investigation involving a controlled delivery of a videotape ordered by Jeffrey Grubbs.
- A federal magistrate judge issued an anticipatory search warrant for Grubbs’s residence based on an affidavit stating the warrant would be executed only after the parcel was received at and taken into the residence.
- The warrant incorporated attachments describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized; the triggering condition appeared in the affidavit.
- After the package was delivered and brought inside, officers entered, provided Grubbs a copy of the warrant and attachments (but not the affidavit), searched the residence, and seized the videotape and other items.
- Grubbs admitted ordering the videotape and was arrested.
- Grubbs was indicted for receiving child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
- The district court denied a motion to suppress; Grubbs entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment required the triggering condition to be stated on the face of the warrant.
Issues
- Whether anticipatory search warrants are categorically unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause requirement.
- Whether the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement requires an anticipatory warrant to state on its face the triggering condition for execution.
- Whether the Fourth Amendment or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 requires officers to present the occupant with a copy of the warrant before beginning the search.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held anticipatory warrants are constitutional when supported by probable cause that evidence will be present at the location when the warrant is executed and that the triggering condition is likely to occur.
- The Court held the Fourth Amendment does not require the triggering condition to appear on the face of the warrant so long as the warrant particularly describes the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
- The Court held neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 requires officers to provide the occupant the warrant (or affidavit) before the search begins.
- Justice Scalia authored the Court’s opinion; Justice Souter concurred in part (joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg); Justice Alito did not participate.
Legal Principles
- Anticipatory warrants satisfy the Fourth Amendment if probable cause supports that (a) evidence will be on the described premises when the search occurs and (b) the triggering event is likely to happen.
- The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement is limited to particular description of (a) the place to be searched and (b) the persons or things to be seized; it does not require listing conditions precedent to execution.
- The Fourth Amendment does not require the warrant to prescribe the manner or timing details of execution beyond the constitutionally required descriptions.
- Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 requires pre-search service of the warrant or supporting affidavit on the occupant as a condition of a reasonable search.
Conclusion
The Court validated anticipatory warrants, rejected a rule requiring the triggering condition to be stated on the warrant’s face, and held that officers need not present the warrant or affidavit to the occupant before initiating a search conducted under a valid warrant.