No. 20-7482

Lavellous Purcell v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: electronic-data-privacy federal-rules-of-evidence fourth-amendment general-warrants internet-privacy interstate-commerce mann-act particularity-requirement probable-cause search-and-seizure search-warrant
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a search warrant ordering Facebook to hand over the defendant's entire account to law enforcement for review, without limiting either Facebook or law enforcement as to what to look for or seize, is unconstitutional

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a search warrant ordering Facebook to hand over the defendant’s entire account to law enforcement for review, without limiting either Facebook or law enforcement as to what to look for or seize, is a plainly unconstitutional “[I]nternet-era version of a general warrant.” United States v. Blake, 866 F.3d 960, 974 (11th Cir. 2017). 2. Whether a defendant “transports an[] individual” in interstate commerce for prostitution, in violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a), merely by arranging job opportunities for the victim that she then availed herself of by crossing state lines of her own accord, as the court below and the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held, or whether the defendant (or an agent) must be involved in arranging the victim’s interstate transportation, as the D.C., First, and Eighth Circuits have held. 3. Whether a witness’s prior out-of-court “statement,” which contradicts the witness’s trial testimony, is nonetheless admissible as a “prior consistent statement” under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), because the contradictory statement was embedded in a broader narrative that was “largely consistent with” the story the witness told at trial. i

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-21
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-05-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 18, 2021.
2021-05-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 17, 2021 to June 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-04-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 17, 2021.
2021-04-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 16, 2021 to May 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Lavellous Purcell
Yuanchung LeeFederal Defenders of New York, Petitioner
Yuanchung LeeFederal Defenders of New York, Petitioner
United States
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent