This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The United States obtained a warrant that specifically described the place to be searched and the items to be seized, based on an affidavit that a videotape containing child pornography would be delivered to the respondent’s house and that the warrant would not be executed until after delivery.
The central legal question was whether a valid anticipatory warrant must contain an indication of the time within which it may be served or executed.
Background and question before the Court
Postal inspectors applied for a warrant that described the premises and items to be seized, based on an affidavit that a child‑pornography videotape would be delivered to the respondent’s house and that the warrant would not be executed until after delivery.
According to Justice Souter, the Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to specify the time of execution, i.e., whether a valid warrant must contain an indication of the time within which it may be served or executed.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Dreeben, there was ample probable cause that the respondent had attempted to receive child pornography through the mail before the triggering event, and the government could have obtained a conventional warrant at that time.
According to Mr. Reichel, the magistrate determined there was probable cause to believe that, at the time of the search, the contraband would be present in the specifically described location.
According to Mr. Reichel, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant must clearly state the time limit on the officer’s power to search in order to satisfy the Particularity Clause.
According to Mr. Reichel, if the warrant is valid under the Fourth Amendment, the time of execution must be clearly stated on the warrant to satisfy the Particularity Clause.
The petitioner asks the Court to hold that the triggering condition in an anticipatory warrant is not subsumed in the Particularity Clause and therefore need not appear on the face of the warrant.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked whether the Government takes the position that a valid warrant need not contain an indication of the time within which it may be served or executed.
Justice Kennedy asked what would prevent the issuance of a blanket warrant, noting that there was a warrant for the premises to be searched.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts clarified that executing a warrant before the triggering event would be invalid because there would be no probable cause.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter raised the issue of an ongoing obligation of reasonableness for officers executing a warrant without a time condition.
Justice Stevens asked whether a wiretap warrant must specify the telephone number and the time at which the officer may listen, or also the content of the conversation.
Justice Scalia asked whether the Government would defend an anticipatory warrant in these circumstances, noting the postal inspectors knew the unlawful video would be mailed to one of 17 individuals.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether a warrant that explicitly states it may not be served until a future time (e.g., 6:30) would be invalid.
Justice Ginsburg asked where the Fourth Amendment mentions time as a particularity requirement.
Justice Breyer asked for clarification on whether anticipatory warrants are ever valid.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg raised the possibility that exigent circumstances could justify a warrant execution after a known delivery of contraband.
- [1] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 4
- [2] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 4
- [3] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 6
- [4] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 10
- [5] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 17
- [6] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 18
- [7] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 36
- [8] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 37
- [9] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 41
- [10] b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdf, p. 53
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- b175abb3734b6c1492d6-r1-0bf0005203256776.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.