No. 21-7095
Paul Anthony Darrah v. United States
IFP
Tags: enterprise enterprise-existence first-amendment fourth-amendment free-speech jury-instruction jury-instructions necessity-requirement rico-conspiracy title-iii-wiretap wiretap-authorization
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
FirstAmendment DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2022-06-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should the jury have been allowed to convict on the hypothetical existence of a RICO enterprise?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is: WI. Was Mr. Darrah’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches violated by the authorization of Title III wiretaps because the lower courts completely ignored the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. § § 2518(1)(c ) and (8)(c)? i
Docket Entries
2022-06-13
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-20
Reply of petitioner Paul Darrah filed.
2022-03-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 9, 2022.
2022-03-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 13, 2022 to May 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-03-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 13, 2022.
2022-03-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 14, 2022 to April 13, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 14, 2022)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent