About: United States v. Grubbs     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FUnited_States_v._Grubbs

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • United States v. Grubbs
rdfs:comment
  • United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.
sameAs
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
foaf:name
  • United States, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Grubbs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
prov:wasDerivedFrom
has abstract
  • United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face. In this particular decision, which arose from a federal child pornography prosecution, the Court ruled that a warrant that was predicated on the undercover delivery of a videotape to the defendant's home, but did not state this on its face, was properly issued and executed because it described the place to be searched and the objects to be seized, and the search was conducted after the delivery was made. Evidence seized from the defendant's house from that search was therefore admissible in court against him.
ArgueDate
  • --01-18
ArgueYear
Concurrence
  • Souter
DecideDate
  • --03-21
DecideYear
Docket
Holding
  • An anticipatory warrant was not defective under the Fourth Amendment for failing to list the "triggering condition" necessary for its execution, because a warrant only needs to describe with particularity the place or person to be searched and the items to be seized. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
JoinConcurrence
  • Stevens, Ginsburg
JoinMajority
  • Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
LawsApplied
Litigants
  • United States v. Grubbs
NotParticipating
  • Alito
Prior
  • 25920.0
SCOTUS
USPage
USVol
majority
  • Scalia
ParallelCitations
  • 172800.0
http://purl.org/voc/vrank#hasRank
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is Wikipage disambiguates of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git39 as of Aug 09 2019


Alternative Linked Data Documents: PivotViewer | iSPARQL | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3232 as of Jan 24 2020, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2020 OpenLink Software