No. 18-6820
Robert Paul Langley, Jr. v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: fourth-amendment fourth-amendment-violation ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-authorization particularity particularity-requirement search-warrant seizure sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure Privacy
FourthAmendment DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Fourth Amendment require that a search warrant particularly describe the things to be seized?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Fourth Amendment require that a search warrant particularly describe the things to be seized? 2. Does the Fourth Amendment require that a search warrant provide judicial authorization to seize things? 3. Is it ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to fail to move to suppress items seized pursuant toa search warrant that did not particularly describe the things to be seized, and did not provide judicial authorization to seize things?
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent Jeff Premo to respond filed.
2018-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 26, 2018)
2018-08-21
Application (18A187) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 18, 2018.
2018-08-10
Application (18A187) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 19, 2018 to November 18, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Jeff Premo
Benjamin Noah Gutman — Oregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Robert Langley
Frank Elmer Stoller — Frank E. Stoller, Attorney at Law, Petitioner