United States v. Grubbs

In United States v. Grubbs, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195, the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed a search warrant issued during a federal investigation involving child pornography. Federal postal inspectors arranged a controlled delivery of a videotape that the defendant, Grubbs, had ordered. Before the delivery, an inspector applied for a search warrant for Grubbs’s home.

The warrant application and supporting affidavit explained that the search would not be executed unless a triggering event occurred: the package had to be delivered to the residence and taken inside. This type of warrant is commonly called an anticipatory warrant because it is based on probable cause that evidence will be at the place to be searched once a future event happens.

A magistrate judge issued the warrant. The warrant itself described the place to be searched and the items to be seized, but it did not state the triggering condition. After the package was delivered and taken into the home, officers executed the warrant and found evidence. Grubbs moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was invalid because the triggering condition was not written on the face of the warrant.

The issue before the Court was whether the Fourth Amendment requires an anticipatory search warrant to state, on the warrant itself, the condition that must happen before officers may execute it.

In plain English, the question was this: if officers get a warrant before the evidence has arrived at the search location, must the warrant itself tell the suspect or the executing officers exactly what future event must occur before the search can legally begin?

The Supreme Court held that anticipatory warrants are not automatically unconstitutional. The Court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause, a neutral magistrate, a particular description of the place to be searched, and a particular description of the persons or things to be seized. It does not require the warrant itself to list every condition that must be satisfied before execution.

For an anticipatory warrant to be valid, there must be probable cause to believe two things. First, the triggering condition will occur. Second, if that condition occurs, evidence of a crime will be found at the place to be searched. In United States v. Grubbs, the warrant application established probable cause because officers had arranged the controlled delivery and described the condition that had to occur before the search.

The Court rejected the argument that the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement extends to the triggering condition. The particularity requirement applies to the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. It does not require that the warrant itself list the future event that authorizes execution.

The practical rule from United States v. Grubbs is that an anticipatory warrant may be valid even if the triggering condition appears in the affidavit or application rather than on the face of the warrant, so long as the warrant is supported by probable cause and particularly describes the place to be searched and the evidence to be seized.

United States v. Grubbs is important for controlled deliveries and other investigations where officers expect evidence to arrive at a location after the warrant is issued. Officers may seek an anticipatory warrant before the evidence is physically present, but the affidavit must give the judge a solid basis to find that the triggering event is likely to happen and that evidence will be present if it does.

For police work, the key lesson is to document the triggering condition clearly in the warrant materials. Even though the Fourth Amendment does not require the condition to be written on the face of the warrant, officers should make sure the affidavit explains exactly what must occur before the search is executed. A clear record helps show that officers did not search too early and that the magistrate had a proper basis for issuing the warrant.

Officers should not read United States v. Grubbs as permission to be vague. The warrant still must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Probable cause must exist at the time the warrant is issued, based on the expected triggering event and the expected presence of evidence once that event occurs.

Departments, prosecutors, judges, or state law may require more than the federal constitutional minimum. For example, a local practice may require the triggering condition to be written into the warrant itself or attached documents. United States v. Grubbs sets the Fourth Amendment floor, not necessarily every agency’s best practice or every state’s procedural rule.