No. 18-9520

Alan Bartlett v. Susanna Pineda, Judge, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, et al.

Lower Court: Arizona
Docketed: 2019-06-03
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure electronic-surveillance fourteenth-amendment-due-process fourth-amendment fourth-amendment-search-and-seizure legislative-authority search-and-seizure state-constitution statutory-interpretation unlawful-search warrantless-search
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether in light of Bollinger v. New Hampshire, 390 U.S. 1020, the Arizona based conviction of petitioner violates his Fourth Amendment rights where the evidence was unlawfully obtained in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a) and the Arizona Constitution where the legislature failed to enact a statute authorizing the interception of communications

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : ltether sin lisht of Bodliilge pe, Whee Mnpshire , YO US LUPO, of Prizond bitsed dé cvetr017_, BLY | ‘ettiner attatl's natin pe Myghihs Lb LEST Wry evidence Unlbutidlly abfatnee | in_viobitein ot foe Yousca b eee ad S?YUSCA CNA nItRT: Of f>)L MTA CG AS trititution Where Liredoe flee Legis He —Whdide Lity Leg red. LOE. Biliape a2) Crider Sith L0gnneat phar LOS PICS Zab #0 perth dba OLS ALD tice. U __ Bd bet’ was conurcted of det (OWSC lo ODL, | _| [ | | | | | Bttoner de LenGanet * Za oe L. Li Michael! Bavblett "RY2SGO : RSW Lower Buckeye bag ern, Artzornd GSOOG a Le portent LE Les | | __ L200 Pilon tg Generaf | Y Mave Broo . ne R087) ) A /.7-77°) BS eshing torn Kiper inp of phe hyeeror Gee —_ ainiopa Boavity byeriir Bu z LIS Wo Wadison Srcer | fncatk, At tzond FS003 pacts. Sorat dgocer_ja_aveisheet ayphon » 4 i=, Opinons Below , 2 2 2 nw 8 | Ir, JwishetHion . . lor, Gmshtutonal ond Sbtufory | Provisions Lnvo/veZ, . .’, ¢¥ Pe_Lnveshe ahocy Meas OF Forsond <0 Y bo, Lines A pitey Lefertoin of FaypeTy . JO : 0, heures of Lroms tn Flin boew,. i : d, ‘ brstot Shacchas eo ooo 6 /3 : Ww, Patment of the S2, 2 2 9 Li feasons fr Gi) ats ing the Writ». al | Wr. Gnclisionen ... 2 0 on WY LWOAEK TO LTUURVOTCES | \PHROIK A, gg nn —ebieidet 6. ss las Aeon ui, Willams, | YO7 US 443 (1972). 5 7 Gylzona VS. techs | | VIO WS. 33/ (19629, 9 JR TrkontaS VS, fn@ersy, | | KS 753 (1977). a Je | |Go/%e LVS. OS, _ | 733 AK 3/ G03, , Fs Beck vs, Obie __ | 379 UWS £9 (bY, , £22 | Brondlin v3, Cobdorrte, frowr) VS, /OXXS, YY3 US Y? (07D. o_o 7 Lunyotr VS, Nort4s Qrohna, a | OL US S¥3 (1908), 6 ag LS | z asa Validerniy vs, Hodaeh Wohibe vs. Mew Lbmypshire, | as S YL? (97). ‘028 Fernanher. YS. (C0fiFarete. | 13Y PCO Wdb (2010, 45 5 43 Florich, Wee S2¢ CO , LOO US BYE (19RD 4 9 » 0 /Z | Vavitey VS, Reger, : YOO US VOCE) 6 5 a FIO Franks ys, Delewove | ¥3E WS 1SY (107E) 5 9 «6 GX IAI UVES, | 2 US 3F (2007), 5 og JF rYon vs, flevnte, _ 490 US Ie& OW), 9 9 Up fd i | . es Miners vs. Oballas,, a a SH KS OS (2008). gg DR Linors_vs, Ward law, RES 9 000) gs ng GP bandh v8, Do fip CG FRA 322 (1D. 5 SO Vpeyland KS, AA L507), _ | SIA US YOP 99D. 5» » Mines V8, Dickerson, SOP YS 306 (293) 9 og 7 _ Nb tedvnl Tena sittg Pamplin VE, Von Moveretie v3. Ohifocnm, RY ACK 1083 (0/Y gg SP bhio vs. Kebinette, S/F YS 33 (9%), gg IS ee het KS. Gaorpgip YE HES 43 yl ¥iP (ae... 6 Uehneck loth vs, Bustamonfe, RMS LE 1973) gg en eX LBVIY _ ¢ Leth v8. Of e, L Y9Y US SY/ (1990), , , ,u Bary 3) Ohio, GO LAS 230 09062) 5g gpg MPR US, VS, LAOVIAW , a oo SBV Uf ROO OR) gg GO WL VES: Lasher, | OF FB) Hol ot, o_o WS KS Qensia OR FB SFY COON) gg WO LALE OF fFATHOWRTIZLES, (2 SL 3, Aristionson, jes) Lib 0665, 5 12 | l5BL YS /9Y L002), gs, Y 13,19 la S, Dunn, — | Lf JOY (19P2 / WS KS, George , | : : GE7 FAA / 42k (71993), 1S WP vs, Croad berry, 730 F Hoek (P13 S22 WS us, Crenon ~ Lat Ved, S73 F130 (Areas WS. ys. LUHEO) , [| Lo00_ F3qfp [YO CP%2), —, Ls VS. Whokrat, Lat Ged s3Pfeey) LHBLE OF” PUTHORZTELES WSC ZS. vs, Ma/ock WS US 10% C1079, 5 10,18 Ue, uS, Wentlan pol’, | ee Yeo US SYY 90), . 1H “ad, vis, Plorafes | fol E.d! 300 CAP)... lo | Yo2 ikl 090 (1983), 5. ([OUw._w. doLo/ow, 90 % o 2 . @ ua ay Potge, | | ¥70 US G75 (9S), 9,10 UP _ VE. Lob unger, | 97 Fi3df Gb (200d IF CP U. FBST 733 f:3d $76 (20/3), /7 oo VI, SS 22 Wh, VS, Lerg Vay, SPY F.3BA Mt) (2010) Jip Se | whven_ve. LP t0, | S/7 US G06 (99), , 6 GF a | Weng fun AY B32) US #20 (403) WO | | \prarves pe gic 1257. 2. » » 2. 2. & | eZ Sefas Qrrttrteteov? ll YOUSTP gg na 3, BY | O*USC, . ng pn an on 3 YA USA. By 2Y a | | a I | a a | ee 9 _ A | We No, = . : | raz (se Wo. LO-16-O/Go-F | (4p2 [ase Wo. | lA-SA (7-0035€ | mes? fase Me, CRON COBY13 aa THE PUREE. COURT” OF THE UNETED. SITES | LEW WIZCHBEL. “BORTCETT. | Detertont -~ heh finer | | __ | PRL ZONA. LhintileRespondent PETTITT ION FOR WRIT OF CERTHOR ARID | TL. OPINIONS BEtOW | The gainisn of th e highest ste | OUtP fo. review (h@ meri7s JOMBUS BF 7 Vya

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2019-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-02-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)

Attorneys

Alan Bartlett
Alan M. Bartlett — Petitioner
Alan M. Bartlett — Petitioner