No. 18-1344

LaMarcus Thomas v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-split exclusionary-rule fourth-amendment good-faith-exception magistrate-review officer-reliance probable-cause warrant-application
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a suppression court may consider (1) only information contained within the four corners of the warrant application, (2) only that information plus any other information presented to the issuing magistrate at the time of the warrant application, or (3) all information known by the officer at the time she applied for the warrant, even if she never disclosed it to the magistrate, and further, even if the officer failed to disclose the information as a result of a departmental policy

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows the admission of illegally obtained evidence if “the officers’ reliance on the magistrate’s determination of probable cause was objectively reasonable.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 926 (1984). What information may be considered in determining whether the officer’s reliance was reasonable “is a question that has split [the] circuits.” United States v. Knox, 883 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2018). The question presented is: Whether a suppression court may consider (1) only information contained within the four corners of the warrant application, as the Ninth Circuit, Colorado, Maryland and South Carolina hold; (2) only that information plus any other information presented to the issuing magistrate at the time of the warrant application, as the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits hold; or (3) all information known by the officer at the time she applied for the warrant, even if she never disclosed it to the magistrate, as the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits and Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Virginia hold— and further, even if, as the Fourth Circuit holds, the officer failed to disclose the information as a result of a departmental policy.

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-12
Reply of petitioner LaMarcus Thomas filed.
2019-07-29
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-06-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 29, 2019.
2019-06-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 27, 2019 to July 29, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 27, 2019.
2019-05-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 28, 2019 to June 27, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-04-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 28, 2019)
2019-02-26
Application (18A868) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until May 6, 2019.
2019-02-22
Application (18A868) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 7, 2019 to May 6, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

LaMarcus Thomas
Daniel Roy OrtizUniversity of Virginia School of Law, Petitioner
Daniel Roy OrtizUniversity of Virginia School of Law, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent