Whether Maryland v. Garrison clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search the wrong house without checking the address or conspicuous features of the house to be searched

QUESTION PRESENTED In Maryland v. Garrison, this Court addressed the constitutional implications of police officers executing a search warrant at the wrong location. The Court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires officers to make “a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched[.]” 480 U.S. 79, 88 (1987). Addressing claims of qualified immunity, three circuits— the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh—hold that Garrison clearly established the law: Officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a house without first checking that it shares the address or conspicuous features of the place they intend to search. But the Fifth Circuit holds below that Garrison merely articulates a “general principle” insufficient to clearly establish the law. As Judge Dennis notes in dissent, the Fifth Circuit’s cramped reading of Garrison created a circuit split. Pet. App. 21a. The question presented is: Whether Maryland v. Garrison clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search the wrong house without checking the address or conspicuous features of the house to be searched.