No. 25-5229
David Loren Waldeck v. United States
Tags: fourth-amendment heien-standard judicial-gloss law-enforcement objective-reasonableness statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a reviewing court is permitted to insert a 'judicial gloss' in construing an unambiguous statute when determining the objective reasonableness of a law enforcement officer's mistake in law under the Fourth Amendment
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
1. Is a reviewing court permitted to insert a “judicial gloss” in construing an unambiguous statute when determining whether a law enforcement officer’s mistake in law used to justify a Fourth Amendment seizure is objectively reasonable under Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014)? ; i
Docket Entries
2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-04
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-08-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-07-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 28, 2025)
Attorneys
David Waldeck
Stephen R. Hormel — Hormel law Office, LLC, Petitioner
Stephen R. Hormel — Hormel law Office, LLC, Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent