Whether the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches based on purported consent when the totality of circumstances suggests the consent was not voluntary or knowingly given

No question identified. : To the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., as Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit: 1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30.3, Applicant Curtis Levar Wells Jr. respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time to, and including, August 19, 2025, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. 2. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its Judgment and Order on January 22, 2025, affirming dismissal. Exhibit 1. The said Court then denied Applicant’s timely petition for rehearing en banc in an order issued March 21, 2025. Exhibit 2. It is from said Order that Applicant will petition for certiorari. Wells v. Fuentes, 126 F.4th 882 (4th Cir. 2025). Without the requested extension, the petition would be due June 20, 2025. 3. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s Judgment and Order dated January 22, 2025, affirmed the District Court’s June 2, 2023, Judgment and Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Exhibit 3. 4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 5. This application is made more than 10 days before the deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. 6. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion contradicts this Court’s holding and guidance regarding consent in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2050 (1973) ([I]t is only by analyzing all the circumstances of an individual consent that it can be ascertained whether in fact it was voluntary or coerced”). This Court’s opinion in Schneckloth, and later cases, holds that consent can only be determined based upon the totality of the circumstances. Id. 7. The instant action concerns important and novel interpretations by the Fourth Circuit as to when a person consents to police searches and seizures that would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment and how to apply qualified immunity. The published opinion, now binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, conflates mere participation in a conversation with police and singing a property retrieval form with consent. The Court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances to include the plain and clear context provided by an audio recording of the encounter that demonstrates there was no consent. 8. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit’s opinion permits the officers to “take shelter” in the inventory-search exception. Wells v. Fuentes, 126 F.4th 882, 894 (4th Cir. 2025). The Opinion permits this shelter despite patent evidence that it was not done to protect from claims of theft or to protect the officers, despite patent evidence the officers failed, in almost every way, to comport with their policies, and despite patent evidence it was done as a mere ruse to rummage through personal property — ultimately, the officers found no evidence of any wrongdoing so they invented it, in part, by falsely reporting that Mr. Wells was in possession of a “handwritten list of chemical compounds that have potential to make the human body bulletproof or even invincible.” Brief of Appellant at 9, Wells v. Fuentes, No. 23-1638 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023). 9. Justice Marshall provided learned guidance on the topic: “One of the few absolutes of our law is the requirement that, absent the presence of one of a few jealously and carefully drawn exceptions, a warrant be obtained prior to any search. [E]xcept in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is unreasonable [within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment] unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.” United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 444 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (1976) (cleaned up). 10. The Fourth Circuit’s Wells v. Fuentes opinion has contradicted its holding in United States v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 677, 679 (4th Cir. 2013) and creates a circuit split with, inter alia, the 9th Circuit. See United States v. Albrektsen, 151 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 11. Further