No. 18-9655
Sylvester Ekwunife v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 4th-amendment affidavit affidavit-accuracy civil-rights constitutional-procedure criminal-procedure detective-misconduct fourth-amendment groh-v-ramirez probable-cause warrant warrant-preparation
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the dictates of Groh v. Ramirez were violated when the Detective in this case did not have all the correct facts when preparing a probable cause affidavit and warrant for Petitioner's arrest
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the dictates of Groh v. Ramirez were violated when the Detective in this case did not have all the correct facts when preparing a probable cause affidavit and warrant for Petitioner’s arrest.
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-09
Waiver of right of respondents City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al. to respond filed.
2019-06-17
Motion (18M168) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted.
2019-05-28
MOTION (18M168) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-04-03
Motion (18M168) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
2019-04-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 17, 2019)
Attorneys
City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.
Elise Michelle Bruhl — City of Philadelphia Law Department, Respondent
Elise Michelle Bruhl — City of Philadelphia Law Department, Respondent