Sunday, January 13, 2019

Groh v. Ramirez case brief

    1. Groh v. Ramirez case brief summary

      1. An informant told the police they had seen a large amount of firearms go into Ramirez’s home. Officer submitted an application to the magistrate that included a detailed list of the weapons they were going to seize but the actual warrant did not identify any of the items
      2. The police searched the home but found no weapons. They gave Mrs. Ramirez a copy of the warrant but not the application. The following day the police gave Ramirez's attorney a copy of the application
      3. The warrant was clearly invalid. Just because the application was descriptive does not mean that the warrant was and therefore invalid
        1. The warrant fails because it is general and specificity
      4. Police: even though the warrant was invalid the search was reasonable
        1. Warrantless searches in homes are presumptively unreasonable
        2. The warrant didn’t describe any of the items to be seized at all
      5. This is a civil case where the Ramirez is suing the officer for infringing on his rights. The courts is saying that the police officer clearly infringed and knew that the warrant was defective therefore you need to pay him money
      6. Difference from Garrison
        1. No reasonable officer would look at this warrant and think that it was valid!

Check out our eBook: How to Win at Law School to see how to transfer to a top school, get the top grades in your class, and get a head start on the legal profession!

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...