No. 20-6905

Christopher Payton May-Shaw v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: curtilage fourth-amendment fourth-amendment-jurisprudence pole-camera reasonable-expectation-of-privacy surveillance warrantless-search
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-06-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the warrantless long-term surveillance of the parking lot and carport adjacent to Petitioner's apartment building through the use of a pole camera attached to a telephone pole for twenty-three consecutive days an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW No.1 Was the warrantless long-term surveillance of the parking lot and carport adjacent to Petitioner’s apartment building through the use of a pole camera attached to a telephone pole for twenty-three consecutive days an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment? No. 2. Was the carport where Petitioner parked his automobile curtilage of his apartment? i

Docket Entries

2021-06-14
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/10/2021.
2021-05-10
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2021-04-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 10, 2021.
2021-04-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 19, 2021 to May 10, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2021.
2021-03-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 19, 2021 to April 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-17
Response Requested. (Due March 19, 2021)
2021-02-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-01-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)

Attorneys

Christopher May-Shaw
Patrick J. HanleyPatrick J. Hanley, Petitioner
Patrick J. HanleyPatrick J. Hanley, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent