No. 18-9530
Terry Margheim v. Kenneth Buck, et al.
IFP
Tags: favorable-termination fourth-amendment innocence legal-process malice probable-cause supreme-court-precedent unlawful-seizure
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are malice and favorable termination indicative of innocence, necessary elements to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Are malice and favorable termination indicative of innocence, necessary elements to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment? If the legal process is tainted and probable cause is lacking, does the tainted determination accrue, extinguish, or somehow convert an unlawful seizure claim into a separate claim under the clarification by Manuel v. City of Joliet of Supreme Court precedent? . ii
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-09
Amended proof of service filed with respect to brief in opposition of respondents Kenneth Buck, et al.
2019-06-25
Brief of respondents Kenneth Buck, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-05-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Kenneth Buck, et al.
Andrew David Ringel — Hall & Evans, LLC, Respondent
Andrew David Ringel — Hall & Evans, LLC, Respondent