No. 22-747

Tracy Renee Pennington v. West Virginia

Lower Court: West Virginia
Docketed: 2023-02-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (3)Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: arrest-warrant circuit-split fourth-amendment fourth-circuit home-entry law-enforcement payton-v-new-york probable-cause
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-05-18 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When the police have an arrest warrant for a person, can they enter a home without probable cause that the person resides there and is present within?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), this Court recognized that an arrest warrant permits entry into a house only if there is “reason to believe” the arrestee lives there and is present. Courts are deeply divided on whether “reason to believe” requires probable cause or a lesser degree of suspicion. The Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits, as well as seven state supreme courts, all hold that probable cause is required. The Second, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, as well as seven additional state supreme courts, hold that probable cause is not required and a lesser showing is sufficient. In this case, the State conceded that probable cause did not exist, but the West Virginia Supreme Court held that the entry was permissible by joining the side of the split rejecting a probable cause standard. Further, it did so in a state that is within a federal circuit, the Fourth Circuit, that has held the opposite. The Question Presented is: “When the police have an arrest warrant for a person, can they enter a home without probable cause that the person resides there and is present within?”

Docket Entries

2023-05-22
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/18/2023.
2023-05-11
Rescheduled.
2023-04-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/11/2023.
2023-04-17
2023-04-03
2023-03-13
2023-03-13
Brief amicus curiae of North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
2023-03-09
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
2023-02-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 3, 2023.
2023-02-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 13, 2023 to April 3, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-02-07

Attorneys

Cato Institute
Clark M. Neily IIICato Institute, Amicus
Clark M. Neily IIICato Institute, Amicus
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Daniel Benjamin LevinMunger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Amicus
Daniel Benjamin LevinMunger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Amicus
North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
John S. WilliamsWilliams & Connolly, LLP, Amicus
John S. WilliamsWilliams & Connolly, LLP, Amicus
Tracy Renee Pennington
Fred Anthony Rowley Jr.Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Petitioner
Fred Anthony Rowley Jr.Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Petitioner
West Virginia
Lindsay Sara SeeOffice of the West Virginia Attorney General, Respondent
Lindsay Sara SeeOffice of the West Virginia Attorney General, Respondent