In U.S. v. Pratt, No. 04-15168 (Feb. 8, 2006), the Court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress. The motion was based on the fact that the search was lost after its execution. The defendant, citing Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (search warrant itself, not its supporting documentation, is scrutinized for compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement), argued that the non-existence of a search warrant conclusively established that a search was warrantless and therefore invalid. Rejectingthis argument, the Court noted that the existence vel non of a search warrant was not at issue in Groh. Further, in this case, there was evidence supporting the warrant’s particularity, namely, the testimony of the issuing judge that he "always makes sure" that the requested warrant matches the affidavit in support, and that he did so in Pratt’s case. Thus, since the affidavit satisfied the particularity requirement, the search warrant did too, and no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.
The Court also rejected a Booker error challenge to the sentence, pointing out that the district court stated at sentencing that it would impose the "same sentence" even if the Guidelines turned out (post-Booker) not to be binding.
