Groh v. Ramirez

The Court held that “[T]he warrant was plainly invalid.” As stated in the Fourth Amendment “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (underline added).” While the oversight in the warrant might appear to be superficial, and the items to be seized are clearly described in the application, the search warrant serves an important function for the person whose privacy is being intruded upon. It provides notice. The Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrants from cross referencing other documents if the warrant “uses appropriate words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant.” Here, the warrant did not incorporate by reference any other document. The Court held that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement is to (1) limit general searches and (2) assure the person whose property is being seized that the officer has authority to conduct a search, the need to search, and the bounds of that search.