No. 20-919
Richard Spinnenweber, et al. v. Dan Williams
Response Waived
Tags: arrest civil-rights criminal-arrest criminal-procedure district-court due-process fourth-amendment judicial-determination law-enforcement legal-standard probable-cause
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2021-03-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in holding that there was probable cause to believe the plaintiffs had committed the crime for which they were arrested
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the district court erred in holding that there was probable cause to believe the plaintiffs had committed the crime for which they were arrested.
Docket Entries
2021-03-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-02-04
Waiver of right of respondent Dan Williams to respond filed.
2020-12-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2021)
Attorneys
Dan Williams
Matthew Joseph Carson — Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Respondent
Matthew Joseph Carson — Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Respondent
Richard Spinnenweber, et al.
Gary Lee Printy — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Gary Lee Printy — Attorney at Law, Petitioner