No. 18-392

Aaron M. Richardson v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: carpenter-precedent carpenter-v-united-states cell-site-location-information eleventh-circuit fourth-amendment search-and-seizure standing stored-communications-act warrant-requirement warrantless-search
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-cell-site-location-information-obtained-without-a-warrant-violates-the-fourth-amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The government obtained Mr. Richardson’s cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(c) and (d). Throughout the course of Mr. Richardson’s pre-trial proceedings, trial, and appeal, he sought the suppression of that evidence under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied Mr. Richardson’s motion to suppress. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that denial in light of its decision in United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 513 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc), which held that obtaining cell site location records under the Stored Communications Act was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Richardson petitioned for rehearing with the Eleventh Circuit in light of this Court’s expected decision in Carpenter v. United States. The Court then issued its decision in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 188 8. Ct. 2206 (2018), holding that the government must generally obtain a search warrant before obtaining an individual’s CSLI, but the Eleventh Circuit denied Mr. Richardson’s petition shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether this Court should grant, vacate, and remand the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision denying defendant’s request to suppress CSLI obtained without a warrant in light of this Court’s recent opinion in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __, 188 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI On behalf of Aaron M. Richardson, the undersigned petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in this case and vacate and remand it in light of Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S.___ (2018). OPINIONS BELOW The Eleventh Circuit’s order denying rehearing en banc is unpublished and reproduced at App’x D at 56a. The opinion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reported at 732 Fed. App’x 822 and included in the

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-14
Reply of petitioner Aaron M. Richardson filed. (Distributed)
2018-12-28
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2018-11-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 28, 2018.
2018-11-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 28, 2018 to December 28, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 28, 2018.
2018-10-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 29, 2018 to November 28, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 29, 2018)

Attorneys

Aaron M. Richardson
John Joseph Ossick Jr.John J. Ossick, Jr., P.C., Petitioner
John Joseph Ossick Jr.John J. Ossick, Jr., P.C., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent