Groh, Jeff v. Ramirez, Joseph, et al. (02/24/2004)

Questions presented: (1) Whether the 9th Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law? (2) Whether law enforcement officers violate the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment when they execute a search warrant already approved by a magistrate judge, based on an attached application and affidavit properly describing with particularity the items to be searched and seized, but the warrant itself does not include the same level of detail?

BY LIBBY SANDER, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

One day in early 1997, while preparing an application for a search warrant, special agent Jeff Groh of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, made a small but costly typographical error. Instead of listing on the warrant the exact items sought as the 4th Amendment requires Groh mistakenly typed a description of the home that agents planned to search.

The omission sparked a legal battle whose conclusion, attorneys say, could change the way law enforcement officers conduct searches and the way in which individuals whose homes are searched assert their constitutional rights.

When does a search carried out under a defective warrant constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment's particularity requirement, in which a warrant must "particularly decrib[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?" And would law enforcement officers enjoy "qualified immunity" from legal action in such a case so long as their actions were "in good faith," as legal precedent requires?

In 1996, the Ramirez family had recently moved from just outside of Waco, Texas, to Butte, Mont. Practitioners of a non-mainstream religion, the Ramirezes provided refuge for abused women and their children as part of a religious outreach. Some citizens of nearby Butte expressed suspicion of the family and its operations, and before long, rumors started circulating that the family kept illegal weapons and ammunition on their 600-acre ranch just outside the city.

In May 1996, Groh received two reports that the Ramirezes kept automatic weapons and grenades on their ranch. Groh met with Joseph Ramirez, who showed him around the ranch. Both Ramirez and his attorney thought that would be the end of it.

But the allegations continued, and in February 1997, Groh completed an application for a search warrant and supporting affidavit. The application included the location that was to be searched and the specific objects sought in this case, "automatic firearms" and "destructive devices" but the warrant itself omitted that specific information. Instead of listing on the warrant the specific items sought, Groh mistakenly typed a description of the Ramirez home: "two-story blue house."

A federal magistrate issued the warrant, and on March 4, 1997, a team of agents from the BATF along with local law enforcement officers went to the Ramirez ranch to carry out the search. Groh described to Julia Ramirez, who was the only one present, which items he was seeking. He also claims to have done the same over the telephone for Joseph Ramirez, who was in Seattle at the time.

After conducting a thorough search of the premises, agents found no illegal weapons or explosives, and the Ramirezes were not charged. Upon leaving, Groh gave Julia Ramirez a copy of the search warrant without the application or the affidavit, the two documents that listed exactly which items agents sought.

The next day, Julia Ramirez faxed a copy of the search warrant to her attorney, who immediately recognized the document as defective. Noting Grohs error in listing "two-story blue house" as the item sought, the attorney recalled contacting Groh and saying, "I think your search warrant is illegal. The only thing youre authorized by this warrant to do is to go to the ranch and look for a house."

Neither side disputes the warrants error. The Ramirezes say the warrant was defective because it neither described the evidence sought nor referred to the application or affidavit. The two latter documents did provide such a description, but both were under court seal when the Ramirezes lawyer requested them following the search, and neither was attached to the copy of the warrant Groh gave Julia Ramirez.

Groh maintained that the existence of the application and affidavit, along with his verbal explanation to the Ramirezes describing the items sought, proved that he acted in good faith. An attorney for Groh said that since the warrant was approved by a judge, Groh was obligated to execute the warrant.

What is yet to be resolved in the courts, both sides say, is whether by executing a defective warrant Groh knowingly violated the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment, and also whether legal precedent at the time was clear enough to determine whether Groh knew he would be personally liable by doing so.

The Ramirezes sued Groh and the law enforcement officers involved in the search in federal court in Montana for violation of their 4th Amendment rights. The defendants were granted summary judgment on the ground that there was no constitutional violation. The officers retained qualified immunity, which grants legal immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established" constitutional rights.

A unanimous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, holding that the warrant ran afoul of the 4th Amendment for failing to describe "with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

"Groh could not have cured the flaw because he lacked the authority to amend the warrant," Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the court. "As a law enforcement officer, Groh was empowered only to execute the warrant. Therefore, he could no more have supplemented it verbally than he could have amended it by crossing out the terms approved by the magistrate and scribbling new ones on the margin." The court said the only way Groh could have fixed the defective warrant was to ask a judge to issue a corrected version, which he did not do.

The court found that Groh was not entitled to qualified immunity and was therefore personally liable because he proceeded with the search without reading the warrant after the magistrate issued it. In its opinion, the court dismissed all of the defendants except Groh, whom it said shouldered a greater amount of responsibility because he led the search.

"The leaders of the expedition may not simply assume that the warrant authorizes the search and seizure," Kozinski wrote. "Rather, they must actually read the warrant and satisfy themselves that they understand its scope and limitations, and that it is not defective in some obvious way."

Attorneys for Groh have maintained that at the time of the search, case law was unclear in demonstrating that officers executing a defective warrant and approved by a judge could be personally liable for violating the 4th Amendment.

On March 3, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case, and on Feb. 24, 2004, a divided Court sided with Ramirez, holding 5-4 that the warrant was plainly invalid and the search was clearly unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.