This is about a bad search warrant. 

During our phone call we talked about being specific.  This guy forgot a whole section. 



A reminder to both police and prosecutors that the search warrant content is at least as important as the content of the search warrant affidavit:

The US Supreme Court yesterday concluded that a law enforcement officer can be held liable and qualified immunity does not apply when the officer obtained and served a search warrant that did not list any items to be searched for or seized.

The court stated that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, and did contain a detailed list of the items the officer wanted to search for. But the affidavit was not incorporated into the warrant, and the section on the warrant directing the officer to "search for and seize...." did not list or describe a single item.  Under these circumstances the court said, the officer conducted what amounted to a "warrantless" search.  Further, the fact that the warrant was wholly invalid would be clear to a reasonable officer; so the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit.

Kennedy, Rhenquist, Thomas and Scalia dissented, at least in part. 

    GROH v. RAMIREZ, No. 02-811 (U.S.S.C. February 24, 2004) 

    To read the full text of this opinion, go to: 
    http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/02-811.html