No. 20-1445
Response Waived
Tags: affidavit computer-evidence criminal-procedure evidence-seizure fourth-amendment probable-cause search-and-seizure surveillance-equipment warrant-application
Latest Conference:
2021-05-13
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals constitutes an unreasonable application of this Court's clearly established precedent, by inferring facts from a building's description to justify the conclusion that the seizure of computers, not mentioned in the affidavit, containing a surveillance video, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals constitutes an unreasonable application of this Court's clearly established precedent, by inferring facts from a building's description to justify the conclusion that the seizure of computers, not mentioned in the affidavit, containing a surveillance video, did not violate the Fourth Amendment
Docket Entries
2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-03
Application (20A158) for a stay of mandate, submitted to Justice Alito.
2021-05-03
Application (20A158) denied by Justice Alito.
2021-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-16
Waiver of right of respondent State of Texas to respond filed.
2021-04-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 17, 2021)
Attorneys
Nathan Foreman
Stanley G. Schneider — Schneider & McKinney, P.C., Petitioner
State of Texas
Clinton A. Morgan — Harris County District Attorney's Office, Respondent