The Supreme Court heard argument today in a Fourth Amendment case involving a faulty warrant by an ATF officer who faces a civil suit for damages. The 9th Circuit ruled the agent does not have immunity. The Justices seemed highly critical of the agent.

The warrant was issued for a ranch in Montana. The affidavit stated weapons would be found there. But the warrant itself, which is what the agents take with them when they go to execute the warrant, failed to mention weapons. It just mentioned the house as a place to be searched with no mention of what was to be searched inside the house.

The Fourth Amendment requires that items to be seized be specified with particularity. This warrant didn't fit the bill.

Why not just apply the constitutional provisions?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Groh's lawyer. "Why couldn't the agent be responsible for checking the warrant?"

Lawyer Richard Cordray told the justices that while the warrant itself omitted mention of weapons, all the specifics were listed on the affidavit used to win court approval of the search. Justice David Souter was unimpressed. The affidavit, he noted dryly, was back at the courthouse while agents were knocking on the door.

Then it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's turn. "Here's a house, and there's no bound at all" on what police can look for or what they can seize, she said. "It looks like just what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to address."

Only Scalia tried to help the ATF agent.