No. 18-9788

Sarah Denise Cardwell v. South Carolina

Lower Court: South Carolina
Docketed: 2019-06-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: computer-search evidence-seizure fourth-amendment inevitable-discovery plain-view-doctrine probable-cause search-and-seizure warrant warrant-requirement warrantless-search
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in applying a standard of 'more likely than not' in concluding under the Fourth Amendment's plain view doctrine that evidence was subject to seizure

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in applying a standard of “more likely than not” in concluding under the Fourth Amendment’s plain view doctrine that evidence was subject to seizure. II. | Whether, after applying the plain view doctrine to a video file labeled with a cover image of a boy wearing a bra, the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding that the doctrine justified playing the video file without a warrant. III. Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying the inevitable discovery doctrine without considering the entire record and without determining that the video file would actually be discovered through the issuance of a warrant. 1

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-02
Waiver of right of respondent South Carolina to respond filed.
2019-06-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 25, 2019)

Attorneys

Sarah Denise Cardwell
Benjamin John TrippS.C. Commission on lndigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, Petitioner
Benjamin John TrippS.C. Commission on lndigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, Petitioner
South Carolina
William M. Blitch Jr.South Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent
William M. Blitch Jr.South Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent