No. 20-6161
Joey Lamont Brunson v. United States
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure evidence-suppression exclusionary-rule fourth-amendment legal-insufficiency statutory-interpretation suppression-of-evidence surveillance-law wiretap-order wiretapping
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-05-13
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a wiretap order that fails to specify the name of the person who authorized the application for such order is insufficient on its face, thereby requiring suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such wiretap order?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Is a wiretap order, which fails to specify the name of the person who authorized the application for such order, insufficient on its face thereby requiring suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such wiretap order? i
Docket Entries
2021-05-17
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-04-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-03-16
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-04
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-12-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 4, 2021.
2020-12-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 30, 2020 to January 4, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 30, 2020.
2020-11-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 30, 2020 to December 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 30, 2020)
Attorneys
Joey Brunson
David Bruce Betts — Law Offices of David B. Betts, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent