Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) prohibit the principal prosecuting attorney from delegating that authority to a deputy when state law allows the delegation?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 authorizes the “principal prosecuting attorney” of a locality to apply for a wiretap order when allowed by state law to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). 1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) prohibit the principal prosecuting attorney from delegating that authority to a deputy when state law allows the delegation? 2. If a wiretap is later held invalid, does Title III require suppression of the evidence obtained even if law enforcement officers had an_ objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that their conduct was lawful? i
2022-11-18
Reply of petitioner Oregon filed. (Distributed)
2022-11-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-11-08
Brief of respondent Langston Amani Harris in opposition filed.
2022-11-08
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition under 15.5 filed by petitioner.
2022-10-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 8, 2022.
2022-10-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 7, 2022 to November 8, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-09-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 7, 2022.
2022-09-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 6, 2022 to November 7, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-09-06
Response Requested. (Due October 6, 2022)
2022-08-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-16
Waiver of right of respondent Langston Amani Harris to respond filed.
2022-07-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 29, 2022)