No. 19-6841

Adam Scott v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-12-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure delayed-sealing evidence-suppression exclusionary-rule fourth-amendment sealing statutory-compliance suppression surveillance-law title-iii title-iii-intercept unforeseen-emergency wiretap wiretap-procedure wiretap-suppression
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should a wiretap that was not sealed until 30 days after interception ended, and 21 days after the order expired, be suppressed where that delay was not due to a mistake of law or an unforeseen emergency event?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions presented in this Writ pursuant to Rule 14.1(a): 1. Should a wiretap that was not sealed until 30days after interception ended, and 2idays after the order expired, be suppressed where that delay was not do to a mistake of law or a unforseen emergency event? 2. Should a Title III wiretap be sealed immediately after interception ended, or should it be sealed after order expires? 3. Should evidence derived from wiretaps be suppressed, if that : wire is suppressed due to delayed sealing? : i

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2020)

Attorneys

Adam Scott
Adam Scott — Petitioner
Adam Scott — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent