No. 19-5280
Charles D. Tuttoilmondo, Jr. v. Texas
IFP
Tags: 4th-amendment administrative-law administrative-search border-patrol checkpoint-search civil-rights commercial-vehicles constitutional-reasonableness criminal-procedure drug-interdiction fourth-amendment roving-patrol search-and-seizure special-needs-doctrine
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Texas' use of commercial motor vehicle inspectors combined with a roving drug interdiction task force unconstitutionally and unreasonably abuse the doctrinal gap between the 'special needs' exception to Brignoni-Ponce's roving patrol doctrine and City of Indianapolis v Edmond's restrictions on programmatic purpose for checkpoints?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does Texas’ use of commercial motor vehicle inspectors combined with a roving drug interdiction task force unconstitutionally and unreasonably abuse the doctrinal gap between the “special needs” exception to Brignoni-Ponce’s roving patrol doctrine and City of Indianapolis v Edmond’s restrictions on programmatic purpose for checkpoints? i
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-19
Brief of respondent The State of Texas in opposition filed.
2019-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Charles D. Tuttolimondo Jr.
Oscar Osmar Pena — Oscar O. Pena Law, PLLC, Petitioner
Oscar Osmar Pena — Oscar O. Pena Law, PLLC, Petitioner
The State of Texas