No. 18-9736
Response RequestedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: 4th-amendment 6th-amendment constitutional-law criminal-procedure fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion-to-suppress search-and-seizure sixth-amendment warrant warrantless-search
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Were Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights violated?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Were Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights violated where :counsel did not file a motion to suppress although the record indicates that police violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights by entering on his property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle therein which resulted in. the unlawful search and seizure upon which the charge in this case is based? : i.
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-01
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-04
Brief of respondent Ohio in opposition filed.
2019-08-05
Response Requested. (Due September 4, 2019)
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Ohio