No. 18-339

June Harper v. Arthur Leahy, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1) Experienced Counsel
Tags: arrest-warrant civil-rights fourth-amendment home-entry law-enforcement-procedure payton-standard payton-v-new-york probable-cause reasonable-suspicion
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Fourth Amendment require police officers to have probable cause to believe that a suspect is present in a home before forcing entry into that home to execute an arrest warrant for the suspect?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED According to Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), “an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” Id. at 603 (emphasis added). The lower courts are intractably divided over the meaning of Payton’s “reason to believe” standard. Whereas three circuits and five state high courts have held that the standard requires only “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect is within, two circuits and two state supreme courts have held that it requires “probable cause” to believe that the suspect is within. The difference between the two standards is substantial and often determines the legality of the entry. It therefore often dictates (in criminal proceedings) the admissibility of evidence subsequently found in the home or (in civil proceedings) the plaintiffs entitlement to damages under Section 1983. The question presented is: Does the Fourth Amendment require police officers to have probable cause to believe that a suspect is present in a home before forcing entry into that home to execute an arrest warrant for the suspect?

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-04
Reply of petitioner June Harper filed.
2018-11-30
Brief of respondents Arthur Leahy, et al. in opposition filed. (12/04/2018)
2018-11-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 30, 2018.
2018-11-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2018 to November 30, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-15
Brief amici curiae of The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
2018-10-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 14, 2018.
2018-10-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 15, 2018 to November 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2018)

Attorneys

Arthur Leahy, et al.
Richard Paul DearingNew York City Law Department, Respondent
Richard Paul DearingNew York City Law Department, Respondent
June Harper
Michael B. KimberlyMayer Brown, LLP, Petitioner
Michael B. KimberlyMayer Brown, LLP, Petitioner
The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, District of Columbia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
John Sievert WilliamsWilliams & Connolly, LLP, Amicus
John Sievert WilliamsWilliams & Connolly, LLP, Amicus