No. 22-6012
IFP
Tags: attenuation-doctrine brown-v-illinois evidence-suppression exclusionary-rule fourth-amendment fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree illegal-search search-and-seizure utah-v-strieff
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2023-04-14
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Is it error to apply the attenuation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois to determine whether evidence discovered during an illegal search should be suppressed? More specifically, where officers conduct an initial unconstitutional search discovering incriminating evidence, and subsequently obtain voluntary consent to perform a second search, is the admissibility of the evidence discovered in the initial search properly analyzed under the attenuation doctrine?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is it error to apply the attenuation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois to determine whether evidence discovered during an illegal search should be suppressed?
Docket Entries
2023-04-17
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
2023-03-10
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 10, 2023.
2023-01-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 8, 2023 to March 10, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-01-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 8, 2023.
2023-01-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 9, 2023 to February 8, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-12-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 9, 2023.
2022-12-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2022 to January 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2022)
Attorneys
Paige Davis
Kim C. Freter — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent