Groh v. Ramirez — Thomas, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Thomas, dissenting, argues that a search conducted under a facially defective warrant should be analyzed for reasonableness rather than automatically treated as warrantless. He concludes that even if the search violated the Fourth Amendment, the petitioner is entitled to qualified immunity because his belief in the warrant's validity was objectively reasonable. Justice Kennedy, dissenting, agrees the officer should receive qualified immunity because the defect was a clerical error rather than a legal mistake.