[Pilgrim]

Supreme Court examines police liability for faulty warrant

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press
(Published Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 3:47 PM)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal agents were looking for a rocket launcher and automatic weapons when they pulled up to a house on a rural Montana ranch, but the warrant they carried mentioned nothing about the suspected cache.
The omission was a mistake by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Jeff Groh, and it could cost him. Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, Groh will face a lawsuit for damages for violating the constitutional rights of Joseph and Julia Ramirez, who lived on Moose Creek Ranch.

During a lively argument session Tuesday, several justices seemed unwilling to let Groh off the hook.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable searches and seizures," and requires that police have probable cause to get a warrant. Warrants, the amendment says, must be supported by an affidavit and must "particularly describ(e) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"Why not just apply the constitutional provisions?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Groh's lawyer. "Why couldn't the agent be responsible for checking the warrant?"

The 1997 search followed a tip about illegal grenades and other weaponry. The search warrant should have listed the weapons or other items agents were looking for. Instead, it contained only a description of the Ramirez house.

Lawyer Richard Cordray told the justices that while the warrant itself omitted mention of weapons, all the specifics were listed on the affidavit used to win court approval of the search.

Justice David Souter was unimpressed.

The affidavit, he noted dryly, was back at the courthouse while agents were knocking on the door.

Then it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's turn.

"Here's a house, and there's no bound at all" on what police can look for or what they can seize, she said. "It looks like just what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to address."

Justice Antonin Scalia, a stickler for the exact wording of the Constitution, nonetheless tried to help Cordray dig out of a deepening hole. The case is less about the bad warrant than what the Ramirezes can do about it now, Scalia pointed out.

The Ramirez family sued Groh and others in federal court, alleging the search was unconstitutional and seeking financial damages.

Law officers are ordinarily immune from suits over their conduct on duty, but the high court has allowed exceptions when the officer violated someone's constitutional rights.

The question this time is whether the faulty warrant opened the door for a suit when there was no specific previous case that would have put Groh on notice that he was at risk.

The Bush administration supports Groh, arguing that a clerical error made in good faith should not leave federal agents personally vulnerable to a lawsuit.

A federal judge dismissed the suit on grounds that the law enforcement officers were immune, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the claim against Groh.

The appeals court said Groh violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and was thus unprotected from being sued. Groh led the investigation and had a special obligation to reread the warrant for errors, the appeals court said.

The case is Groh v. Ramirez, 02-811.

http://www.fresnobee.com/24hour/nation/story/1044101p-7337339c.html

[jimpeel]

The question this time is whether the faulty warrant opened the door for a suit when there was no specific previous case that would have put Groh on notice that he was at risk.So, unless some other poor schlub has been violated, and forced to sue for relief, and won a judgement in that case, and that case was upheald on appeal, the Constitution, and specifically the Fourth Amendment, is invalid and has no force of law up to that point?:what:

I sure get real tired of that "standing" crap.

[El Tejon]

Gee, F Troop wouldn't be using blank warrants or committing perjury in order to obtain a false warrant would they?:rolleyes:

[Mark Tyson]

Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, Groh will face a lawsuit for damages for violating the constitutional rights of Joseph and Julia Ramirez, who lived on Moose Creek Ranch.

And our constitutional right to bear arms? What about that?

[Kharn]

Mr. Groh, repeat after me: "Would you like fries with that?" :evil:

Kharn

[BamBam]

The Ramirez family lives on "a remote Montana ranch". Like Burt Grubber, they probably just want to be left the heck alone.

I'm sorry to read that Bush enjoys using the Constitution as toilet paper.

[DJJ]

The question this time is whether the faulty warrant opened the door for a suit when there was no specific previous case that would have put Groh on notice that he was at risk.
:confused: So federal agents get one "free one"?

The Bush administration supports Groh, arguing that a clerical error made in good faith should not leave federal agents personally vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Perhaps the Ramirezes made a gun ownership error in good faith, and therefore should not be personally vulnerable to prosecution. Oh, yeah, the double standard. Sorry... :barf:

Based solely on this article, I predict the vote will go O'Connor, Souter and Ginsburg for the Ramirezes, and the rest (the self-proclaimed "original intenters") for the fed.

We should also take note which court of appeals upheld the Ramirez' suit.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment bans "unreasonable searches and seizures," and requires that police have probable cause to get a warrant. Warrants, the amendment says, must be supported by an affidavit and must "particularly describ(e) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Says O'Connor:
"Why not just apply the constitutional provisions?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Groh's lawyer. "Why couldn't the agent be responsible for checking the warrant?"

Says Ginsburg:
"Here's a house, and there's no bound at all" on what police can look for or what they can seize, she said. "It looks like just what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to address."


Seems pretty clear to me. It says what it means and it means what it says.

Now, about that 2nd amendment.....

[Redlg155]

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but did they seize anything or find anything illegal?

More than likely they found abosulutely nothing, otherwise they would be argueing that whatever found would have to be admissable as evidence in a criminal case.

Good Shooting
Red

[Bill Hook]

If they had found anything, the Ramirezes would A) be arguing that the evidence obtained were illegal in this suit, in addition to damages and B) the BATF would've cooked up a plea agreement or a dismissal in exchange for them to drop their suit.

[AZRickD]

Let's compare and contrast:
A federal judge dismissed the suit on grounds that the law enforcement officers were immune,
with:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

[Sergeant Bob]

The Bush administration supports Groh, arguing that a clerical error made in good faith should not leave federal agents personally vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Clerical errors on warrants get the wrong people arrested, the wrong doors kicked in, the wrong people killed.
It really scares me to find myself agreeing with the 9th Circus Court, Souter, O'Conner, and Rube Ginsburg:what:

[El Tejon]

Red, it's a Bivens action (civil lawsuit for violation of civil rights) against the feds.

[Waitone]

You wanna cut down on zealous, inappropriate enforcement by LE in general and federales in particular?

Introduce the concept of personal accountability into the mix.

Now there's a novel concept.

[Sodbuster]

...Bush enjoys using the Constitution as toilet paper
Like his daddy circa 1989.

[Fed168]

Last time I checked, you had to have a list of items to be seized in the affidavit, and definately have that affidavit with you when it is served.

Who's the judge or magistrate that read it over? Seems that they missed something.

[El Tejon]

Fed, old F Troop tactic: conduct raid with no warrant. At the time you are inside the residence, fill in items on blank warrant or use telephone to fill in warrant with agents waiting outside judge's chambers. ATF also uses falsified or fictional items to be seized (Waco biggest example).

[Henry Bowman]

El T - You are so cynical! :neener:

[El Tejon]

Henry, you do know what I do in the office, right?:D

Oh, yes, and don't forget, making the agent who waited outside with the cars write the reports for all other agents involved in the raid.:uhoh:

[Edward429451]

I'd like to know why the administration is allowed to make mistakes in good faith...And people's lives are ruined everyday over technicalities and mistakes also made in good faith.

[Balog]

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Why do I get visions of Lon Horiuchi? :fire: :barf::barf::barf:

Anyone kow if these pics are actually of everyone's favorite "sniper?"
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/randyweaver.htm

[Sven]

BATF Lost the case...

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

GROH v. RAMIREZ, No. 02-811 (U.S.S.C. February 24, 2004)
The search of plaintiffs' ranch was clearly unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment. The warrant was plainly invalid, failing to
describe with particularity the items to be seized; because it did
not describe these items at all, the search was presumptively
unreasonable; defendant, who prepared and executed the warrant, is
not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer
could believe such a warrant to be valid.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-811

Oh yeah, how it all started:

n February 1997, a concerned citizen informed petitioner that on a number of visits to respondents' ranch the visitor had seen a large stock of weaponry, including an automatic rifle, grenades, a grenade launcher, and a rocket launcher.

[madmike]

Nice. I hope they sue him for $37 million.


I dunno, I just like the sound of that number.


An excellent case of "pour encourager les autres." (To encourage the others.)

Now, if we could have erected a gallows outside Waco...

visions of Janet Sterno swingin' in the breeze with buzzards at her eyes...

[madmike]

hmm....and is that "concerned citizen" in jail for false report? Mayhap our BATFk buddy, distressed at losing his job, will hunt down this liar, this filth, this attacker of an honest gunowner (or nongunowner) and beat the living tar out of him?

This could be a really nice case all around. :D

[Bruce H]

What's the amount the treasury has? That is the amount of the suit. Lawyer tries it for the media exposure. BATFE, FBI, DEA, all fired because of no funding. Harsh examples need to be made here.

[Kharn]

When Scalia, Thomas and Reinquest all dissent, something definitely deserves a closer look. But its good Mr. ATF Agent was put in his place by the highest court in the land.

Kharn

[Bruce H]

Kind of makes one wonder if there isn't three justices that support the constitution when it suits them. The warrant was so screwed up there is no reason for immunity. It would really be great if this would put a stop to unnamed sources for warrants.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Personal accountability makes sense. No Nuremburg defense.

Agent 1: This is the place.

Agent 2.: No, the address is wrong, and the name on the mailbox is different.

Agent 1: So what? They look like scumbags anyway.

Agent 2: Hey, we are responsible for this. We need to verify with our highers.

Agent 1: Hey, we have orders!

Agent 2: Yeah, we have a warrant for a house that isn't here.

Agent 1: We have to do this. The Capt. gave us a green light.

Agent 2: Capt. Remo, this warrant is wrong. Where did we get this information and why id the warrant FUBAR?

Remo: Unnamed source. I am told it is reliable. Knock down the door.

Agent 2: I refuse to follow that order. The warrant is invalid. GROH v. RAMIREZ says I am accountable here and I will not serve the warrant.



Accountability will bring a necessary review to the foot soldier level, the guy in the field with possibly contradictory facts staring him in the face. It will cause errors, but errors on the side of caution.

[cracked butt]

"The Bush administration supports Groh, arguing that a clerical error made in good faith should not leave federal agents personally vulnerable to a lawsuit.
"

Yeah, try defending yourself when you make an accidental mistake on a BATFE or Treasury Department form in good faith. I deal with BATFE forms (Treasury Department) at work in accounting for 200 proof ethanol consumption for tax purposes. You have to justify every line of the forms no matter how mundane or absurd. By contrast, the DEA has a better understanding of what we do and gives us some leeway in our procedures and recording of controlled substances. I guess its the difference between having someone with their hand in your pocket and another who is off in the distance just trying to keep you honest.

[CaesarI]

When Scalia, Thomas and Reinquest all dissent, something definitely deserves a closer look.
Is anybody else worried when there aren't any people who believe in the entire constitution as written on the Supreme Court? We had to rely on Ginsburg for this kinda stuff. Puts a bad taste in my mouth.

-Morgan