No. 21-5679
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: cell-site-simulator criminal-procedure fourth-amendment plea-agreement plea-bargaining privacy privacy-rights search-and-seizure wiretap wiretap-order
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-10-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether employment of a 'cell-site simulator' constituted a Fourth Amendment violation?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 7 : WHETHER EMPLOYMENT OF A "CELL-SITE SIMULATOR", IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THE PETITIONER POSSESSED ANOTHER CELLPHONE, OR CELLPHONES, CONSTITUTED AN INFRINGEMENT OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY WHEN .. THE WIRETAP ORDER DID NOT AUTHORIZED ITS USE? WHETHER AN INTEGRATED PLEA AGREEMENT, WHICH DEPARTS FROM PRIOR ORAL AGREEMENTS ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND ; WITHOUT NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT OF THE DELETED PROVISION, RENDERED!:A GUILTY PLEA THA WAS MADE IN RELIANCE:‘ON THE . . PROSECUTOR'S PRIOR ORAL REPRESENTATIONS, NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THE PLEA WAS NOT MADE VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY, ! AND INTELLIGENTLY?
Docket Entries
2021-10-12
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
2021-09-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-08-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 18, 2021)
Attorneys
United States
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent