United States v. Grubbs

2006-03-21

Headline: Anticipatory search warrants are allowed and need not list the triggering condition in the warrant, upholding controlled-delivery searches and letting officers execute searches after planned deliveries without that clause in the face copy.

Holding: The Court ruled that anticipatory warrants are constitutional when the magistrate’s affidavit shows probable cause the triggering condition will occur and the warrant itself need not list that triggering condition.

Real World Impact:

Allows controlled-delivery searches without naming the trigger on the warrant copy.
Requires magistrates’ affidavits to show probable cause both for the item and the trigger.
Homeowners may not receive the supporting affidavit during the search.

Topics: search warrants, police searches, controlled deliveries, privacy rights, child pornography

Summary

Background

Jeffrey Grubbs, a private individual, ordered a videotape containing child pornography from an undercover postal inspector. Postal inspectors arranged a controlled delivery to his home and obtained an anticipatory search warrant from a magistrate. The supporting affidavit explained the warrant would be executed only after the package was delivered and physically brought into the residence. The issued warrant incorporated attachments describing the place and items to seize but did not include the body of the affidavit stating the triggering condition. After delivery, officers executed the search, gave Grubbs a copy of the warrant (not the affidavit), arrested him, and seized the videotape; he was indicted and moved to suppress the evidence.

Reasoning

The Court held that anticipatory warrants are consistent with the Fourth Amendment so long as the magistrate has probable cause to believe evidence will be at the place when the warrant is executed. For a conditioned anticipatory warrant, the magistrate must find both that contraband would likely be present if the condition occurs and that there is probable cause the condition will occur. The Court concluded the affidavit here satisfied both aspects and reversed the Ninth Circuit. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment’s particularity clause requires particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, but does not require the warrant itself to state the triggering condition.

Real world impact

The decision allows law enforcement to execute controlled-delivery searches under anticipatory warrants even when the warrant copy does not recite the triggering condition, provided the magistrate’s affidavit establishes the necessary probable cause. The Court noted neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 requires officers to present the supporting affidavit to the homeowner at the outset; constitutional protection relies on prior judicial review and post-search remedies such as suppression or damages.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, concurred in part and in the judgment but cautioned that failing to state the triggering condition on the face of a warrant can cause practical and constitutional problems, mislead executing officers, and leave property owners less able to monitor searches.