United States v. Grubbs
2006 U.S. LEXIS 2496, 547 U.S. 90, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Anticipatory search warrants, which are issued before contraband is present at the location to be searched, are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, which mandates a specific description of the place to be searched and things to be seized, does not require the warrant itself to specify the triggering condition for its execution.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Grubbs purchased a videotape containing child pornography from a website operated by an undercover postal inspector.
- Postal Inspection Service officers arranged a controlled delivery of a package containing the videotape to Grubbs' residence.
- A postal inspector's affidavit supporting a search warrant application explained that the warrant would be executed only after the package was received and taken inside the residence.
- The Magistrate Judge issued the warrant, which incorporated attachments describing the residence and items to be seized, but did not include the affidavit's triggering condition.
- An undercover inspector delivered the package, which Grubbs' wife signed for and took inside the home.
- A few minutes later, inspectors detained Grubbs as he left his home, entered the residence, and began the search.
- About 30 minutes into the search, officers provided Grubbs with a copy of the warrant, but not the supporting affidavit that contained the triggering condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Grubbs was indicted by a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (trial court).
- Grubbs filed a motion in the District Court to suppress the evidence seized from his residence.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Grubbs entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Grubbs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding the warrant was invalid because it failed to list the triggering condition.
- The United States (appellant) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement mandate that an anticipatory search warrant must explicitly state the 'triggering condition' for its execution on the face of the warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No, the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement does not compel an anticipatory search warrant to list the triggering condition on its face. Anticipatory warrants are constitutionally permissible because the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted, not whether it is present when the warrant is issued. For a conditioned anticipatory warrant to be valid, the magistrate must find probable cause that (1) the contraband will be on the premises if the triggering condition occurs, and (2) the triggering condition will in fact occur. The Fourth Amendment's text is decisive; it requires particularity only for 'the place to be searched' and 'the persons or things to be seized,' not for the conditions of execution. The Constitution protects individuals through the ex ante review by a neutral magistrate, not by requiring the warrant to serve as a document for the property owner to 'police the officers' conduct' during the search.
Concurring - Justice Souter
I agree that anticipatory warrants are constitutional and concur in the judgment, but I believe the majority's textual analysis goes too far. While the Fourth Amendment's text does not explicitly mention triggering conditions, the very concept of a 'warrant' implies a statement of authority that sets out the condition on which authorization begins. Failing to list the condition on the warrant is a dangerous practice because it can lead to confusion for the executing officer, potentially resulting in a premature and unreasonable search. Furthermore, an accurate warrant serves to assure the property owner of the officer's lawful authority, an important interest even if the right to inspect the warrant pre-search is not yet settled. The government should beware of relying on warrants that omit such a critical component of the magistrate's authorization.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the constitutionality of anticipatory search warrants, providing a key tool for law enforcement in operations involving controlled deliveries of contraband. By adopting a strict textualist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's particularity clause, the Court reinforced the principle that its requirements should not be expanded beyond what is explicitly written. While this gives law enforcement operational flexibility, Justice Souter's concurrence serves as a strong caution, highlighting the practical risks and potential for future constitutional challenges if police make a habit of omitting triggering conditions from the face of warrants.
