No. 22-5065

O. L. v. Liliana Jara, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-07-11
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: cell-phone-search consent digital-duplication fourth-amendment possessory-interest privacy search-and-seizure seizure
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When a crime victim's cell phone is searched, what is the scope of consent?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented is: . a. Where a crime victim’s cell phone is fingerprint and , password protected and no one else even had access to that cell . phone other than the law enforcement she came into contact with, | | | does the crime victim raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether | law enforcement unreasonably searched the crime victim’s cell “ phone when she discovered a translation of her message she did not make? | 4. A district court weighing a motion to dismiss asks "not ; whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant | is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). It is abuse of discretion to deny leave to ‘ : . amend absent a clear or declared reason such as delay, bad faith, . ; ; prejudice, or a repeated failure to cure a problem in the complaint. : Foman v. Davis, 371 US. 178, 182 (1962). The questions presented are: , ; a. Whether a victim of sexual assault adequately alleged that Officers violated her right to equal protection where they intentionally treated h

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-07-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-16
Waiver of right of respondent Liliana Jara, et al. to respond filed.
2022-07-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 10, 2022)

Attorneys

Liliana Jara, et al.
David C. MooreCollins & Collins, LLP, Respondent
David C. MooreCollins & Collins, LLP, Respondent
O.L.
O. L. — Petitioner
O. L. — Petitioner