No. 25-6207
Mark Eugene Benton v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights effective-counsel fourth-amendment search-and-seizure sixth-amendment vehicle-search
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Securities Privacy
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Securities Privacy
Latest Conference:
2026-01-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the search of the petitioners vehicle lawful under the 4th Amendment and Montana Constitution, and did the petitioner receive effective counsel under the 6th Amendment?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
1) Was the search of the petitioners vehicle, on 12-31-2020, lawful under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Montana Cnstitution Art.II,Sec. 11? 2) . Did the petitioner recieve effective counsel under the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution? 3) Did the Court improperly construe the rules of Probation and Parole for the State of Montana? 4) . Does the petitioner have a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right in which jurists of reason would find debatable?
Docket Entries
2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-17
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-07-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 24, 2025)
2025-03-06
Application (24A853) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 11, 2025.
2025-02-22
Application (24A853) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 12, 2025 to July 11, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent