No. 23-1020

Utah v. Alfonso Valdez

Lower Court: Utah
Docketed: 2024-03-18
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1) Experienced Counsel
Tags: cellphone cellphone-privacy criminal-procedure fifth-amendment foregone-conclusion passcode self-incrimination testimonial testimonial-communication
Latest Conference: 2024-06-20
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Is disclosing a cellphone passcode that has no substantive meaning testimonial under the Fifth Amendment when the only information communicated is the passcode?

2. Does the Fifth Amendment foregone-conclusion doctrine apply to the disclosure of a cellphone passcode when the government has evidence the phone belongs to the suspect?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether disclosing a cellphone passcode with no substantive meaning is testimonial under the Fifth Amendment

Docket Entries

2024-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2024-05-31
2024-05-17
2024-04-17
2024-03-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 17, 2024.
2024-03-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 17, 2024 to May 17, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-03-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2024)

Attorneys

Alfonso Valdez
Lisa S. BlattWilliams & Connolly LLP, Respondent
State of Utah
Stanford Edward PurserUtah Solicitor General, Petitioner
States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas
James Allen BartaOffice of the Indiana Attorney General, Amicus