Document: 547 U.S. 90 (2006) UNITED STATES v. GRUBBS No. 04-1414. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 18, 2006. Decided March 21, *91 Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for With him on briefs were Clement, Assistant Attorney Fisher, and Dan Himmelfarb. Mark J. Reichel respondent. brief Linda C. Harter Jeffrey T. Green.[*] *92 JUSTICE SCALIA delivered opinion Court. Federal law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant respondent's house basis an affidavit explaining that would be executed only after controlled delivery contraband to location. We address two challenges constitutionality this anticipatory warrant. I Respondent Grubbs purchased videotape containing child pornography from Web site operated by undercover postal inspector. Officers Postal Inspection Service arranged package Grubbs' residence. A inspector submitted application Magistrate Judge Eastern District California, accompanied describing proposed operation in detail. The stated: "Execution will not occur unless until parcel has been received person(s) physically taken into residence . At time, before, me other States inspectors, with appropriate assistance accordance warrant's command." App. Pet. Cert. 72a. In addition triggering condition, referred attachments, which described items seize. These but body affidavit, incorporated requested concluded: "Based upon foregoing facts, respectfully submit there exists probable believe set forth Attachment B warrant, found [at residence], is further at A." Ibid. *93 issued as requested. Two days later, package. wife signed it took unopened inside. inspectors detained he left his home few minutes then entered commenced search. Roughly 30 search, was provided copy included both attachments supporting explained when executed. consented interrogation admitted ordering videotape. He placed under arrest, various seized, including grand jury California indicted one count receiving visual depiction minor engaged sexually explicit conduct. See 18 § 2252(a)(2). moved suppress evidence seized during residence, arguing relevant here invalid because failed list condition. After evidentiary hearing, denied motion. pleaded guilty, reserved right appeal denial motion suppress. Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed. 377 F.3d 1072, amended, 389 1306 (2004). Relying precedent, held "the particularity requirement Fourth Amendment applies full force conditions precedent warrant." F.3d, 1077-1078 (citing Hotal, 143 1223, 1226 (CA9 1998)). An defective reason may "cur[ed]" if are "presented person whose property being searched." 1079. Because "failed present affidavitthe document listed"to or *94 wife, "warrant inoperative, illegal." granted certiorari. 545 1164 (2005). II Before turning Circuit's conclusion issue ran afoul Amendment's requirement, we antecedent question whether warrants categorically unconstitutional.[1] "a based showing some future time (but presently) certain crime located specified place." 2 W. LaFave, Search Seizure 3.7(c), p. 398 (4th ed. 2004). Most subject their execution condition than mere passage timea so-called "triggering condition." here, instance, "[e]xecution th[e] [containing pornography] residence." If government execute before occurred, no item could searched location; definition, establishes yet satisfied issued. argues contravene *95 provision "no Warrants shall issue, cause." reject view, every confront see, e. g., Loy, 191 360, 364 (CA3 1999) (collecting cases). Probable "there fair probability particular Illinois Gates, 462 213, 238 (1983). probable-cause looks conducted, all are, sense, "anticipatory." typical case where police seek permission they already there, magistrate's determination amounts prediction still People Glen, N.Y. 2d 252, 258, 282 N.E.2d 614, 617 (1972) ("[P]resent possession probative likelihood possession").[2] nature even clearer context electronic surveillance. See, Katz States, 347 (1967). When request approval tap telephone line, do so that, course surveillance, use phone engage crime-related conversations. federal requires judge authorizing "interception wire, oral, communications" determine *96 belief communications concerning [one listed offenses] through such interception." 2518(3)(b) (emphasis added); see also Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8, 11, n. 3 (CA1 1993) ("[T]he magistrate issues substantial conversations ensue"). Thus, issued, fact presently place immaterial, long executed." Garcia, 882 699, 702 (CA2 1989) (quoting Lowe, 575 1193, 1194 (CA6 1978); internal quotation marks omitted). Anticipatory therefore, different principle ordinary warrants. They require (1) now (2) contraband, crime, fugitive premises (3) It should noted, however, places (other time) its execution, first these determinations goes merely what probably met. (If extent determination, country, seizure deliveredthough any single location delivered.) Rather, conditioned occur, thus proper object premises. words, comply cause, prerequisites must satisfied. true occurs place," *97 supra, 238, occur. provide sufficient information evaluate aspects determination. 703. case, occurrence condition successful residence plainly establish addition, established Although possible have refused had ordered, unlikely. therefore "had `substantial conclud[ing]' existed." 238-239 Jones 362 257, 271 (1960)). III invalidated specify held, "applies 1077-1078. Amendment, does general "particularity requirement." specifies matters "particularly describ[ed]" warrant: searched" persons things seized." previously rejected efforts expand scope embrace unenumerated matters. Dalia 441 (1979), considered order interception oral means "bug" installed petitioner's office. petitioner covert entry necessary install listening device, "explicitly entries fact." Id., 255. This argument fell "`precise clear'" words *98 Amendment: "Nothing language Constitution Court's decisions interpreting suggests [requirements text], include specification precise manner Stanford Texas, 379 476, 481 (1965)); U.S., 257. likewise decisive here; Respondent, drawing analysis below, relies primarily related policy rationales. First, argues, setting itself "to delineate limits executing officer's power." Brief 20. application, respondent asserts, following principle: "[I]f precondition valid exercise executive power, particularly identified face 23. That Constitution. finding though quintessential "precondition Much less description Second, listing "`assur[e] individual lawful authority officer, need power search.'" 19 Chadwick, 433 1, 9 (1977)). went further, asserting owner informed "would `stand [no] real chance policing officers' conduct.'" 1079 Ramirez Butte-Silver Bow County, 298 1022, 1027 2002)). assumes officer *99 conducting 1079, 9. fact, neither nor Rule Criminal Procedure 41 imposes requirement. Groh Ramirez, 540 551, 562, 5 "The absence constitutional exhibited outset indeed ended, protect interest monitoring searches." Stefonek, 179 1030, 1034 (CA7 (citations protects owners giving them license debate over interposing, ex ante, "deliberate, impartial judgment judicial between citizen police," Wong Sun 371 471, 481-482 (1963), providing, post, improperly action damages. * itself, erred invalidating here. reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. ALITO part consideration decision case. SOUTER, whom Justice STEVENS GINSBURG join, concurring judgment. agree reasons stated Part *100 opinion, join disposition But qualify points made III. notes failure objects sought violates express textual whereas text says nothing about issuing authorization (here, contraband). difference is, neglecting point contingency intended trigger authorization, beware banking terms without specification. notation starting date feature objectionable 18th-century writs assistance, Massachusetts Writs Assistance Bill, 1762, reprinted M. Smith, Case 567-568 (1978); Writ (English) George III, 1761, id., 524-527. And say very word "warrant" statement sets out (or, warrants, which) begins.[*] mention can lead several untoward consequences significance. To begin with, fails tell truth authorized cannot inform responsibility respect 560-563, 4 (2004), failing assuming significance official who applied happens know unstated peril simply takes makes ostensibly *101 met, unreasonable. declined apply exclusionary rule reasonably product faulty sloppy practice, Sheppard, 468 981, 987-991 (1984). obtains realize omits depends, hard why despite unconditional Cf. 554-555, 563, 6 (declaring unconstitutional conducted pursuant asked seize "officers leading team `make sure authorizes conduct'" (brackets omitted)). Nor incomplete owner's accurate government's property. sure, settled; careful note demand making way determined, 5, remains undetermined today. regardless part, reliably "assures search." (1977), quoted 561. later holds homeowner inspect request, give correct misapprehension police's met been. enter anyway *102 reasonable (albeit incorrect) justification, certainly open serious challenge unreasonable within meaning Amendment. NOTES [*] Daniel L. Kaplan Fisher filed National Association Defense Lawyers et al. amici curiae urging affirmance. Ric Simmons Defenders amicus curiae. [1] "predicate intelligent resolution presented." Ohio Robinette, 519 33, 38 (1996) (internal little sense allow all. Wilkinson Austin, 209, 221 (2005) (addressing inmates liberty avoiding assignment "Supermax" prison, State's concession did, "[w]e reach process due constitutionally protected interest"). [2] For reason, cease exist learn, longer searched. Bowling, 900 926, 932 1990) (recognizing fruitless consent "dissipat[e] justified warrant"). Or grown "stale" view passed since Wagner, 989 69, 75 facts sufficiently close issuance subsequent said past"); Sgro 287 206, 210-211 (1932). 41(e)(2)(A) command "execute 10 days."

Category: 0