October Term 2003 · Docket 02-811

Does a wrong address on a warrant strip an officer of legal protection?

A federal agent searched a home using a warrant with the wrong address. The agent claims legal protection. The homeowner claims the error was obvious.

Official caption
Groh v. Ramirez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The agent argued for a practical standard.

    The agent cited prior case law.

    The homeowner argued the error was obvious.

    The homeowner cited the specific address error.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how strictly courts judge warrant errors. One side argues for a practical standard. The other argues for strict accuracy.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The agent wants legal protection from a lawsuit.

The homeowner wants the agent to pay damages.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The agent argues courts should use a practical standard.

The homeowner argues the warrant error was obvious.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

How strictly must courts judge warrant errors?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the standard for judging warrant errors. It affects how courts treat obvious mistakes. It shapes officer liability for search errors.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON