1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.1
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X3JEFF GROH, :4 Petitioner :5 v. : No. 02-8116JOSEPH R. RAMIREZ, ET AL. :7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X8 Washington, D.C.9 Tuesday, November 4, 200310 The above-entitled matter came on for oral11argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at1210:03 a.m.13APPEARANCES:14RICHARD A. CORDRAY, ESQ., Grove City, Ohio; on behalf of 15 the Petitioner.16AUSTIN C. SCHLICK, ESQ., Assistant to the Solicitor17 General, Department of Justice; as amicus curiae,18 supporting the Petitioner.19VINCENT J. KOZAKIEWICZ, ESQ., Boise, Idaho; on behalf of 20 the Respondent.2122232425
1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.2
1 C O N T E N T S2ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE3RICHARD A. CORDRAY, ESQ.4 On behalf of the Petitioner 35AUSTIN C. SCHLICK, ESQ.6 As amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner 217VINCE KOZAKIEWICZ8 On behalf of the Respondent 329REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF10RICHARD A. CORDRAY, ESQ.11 On behalf of the Petitioner 511213141516171819202122232425
1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S2 (10:03 a.m.)3 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument4first this morning in No. 02-811, Jeff Groh v. John -5Joseph R. Ramirez.6 Mr. Cordray.7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF RICHARD A. CORDRAY8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER9 MR. CORDRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and10may it please the Court:11 I'd like to reserve 2 minutes of my time for12rebuttal. This case concerns a mistaken description on13the face of a judicial warrant that the court of appeals14held deprived Agent Groh of qualified immunity, subjecting15him to personal liability for damages in this Bivens16action. The Ninth Circuit reached this result despite the17fact that the record here shows Agent Groh's manifest good18faith and reasonable course of conduct, including three19key points.20 First, the record shows that the affidavit and21application submitted to the magistrate were sufficient22and comprehensive. Second, the magistrate personally23reviewed and approved the application and expressly24referenced the affidavit in the warrant he issued. And25third, the search as executed conformed to the limits set
of 00
US Supreme Court: 02-811
84 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/19/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment