No. 19-6841
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure delayed-sealing evidence-suppression exclusionary-rule fourth-amendment sealing statutory-compliance suppression surveillance-law title-iii title-iii-intercept unforeseen-emergency wiretap wiretap-procedure wiretap-suppression
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure Privacy
CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should a wiretap that was not sealed until 30days after inter
ception ended, and 21days after the order expired, be suppressed
where that delay was not do to a mistake of law or a unforseen
emergency event?
2. Should a Title III wiretap be sealed immediately after inter
ception ended, or should it be sealed after order expires?
3. Should evidence derived from wiretaps be suppressed, if that
wire is suppressed due to delayed sealing?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a wiretap that was not sealed until 30 days after interception ended, and 21 days after the order expired, be suppressed where that delay was not due to a mistake of law or an unforeseen emergency event?
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2020)
Attorneys
Adam Scott
Adam Scott — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent