No. 23-1020
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
Reply of petitioner Utah filed. (Distributed)
2024-05-17
Brief of respondent Alfonso Valdez in opposition filed.
2024-04-17
Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed.
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. Blatt — Williams & Connolly LLP, Respondent
State of Utah
Stanford Edward Purser — Utah 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