|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-7822||Cal. Ct. App.||Nov 13, 2013||Feb 25, 2014||6-3||Alito||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: The Court’s decision in Georgia v. Randolph, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 25, 2014. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 17 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2013)|
|Jan 2 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Jan 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.|
|Feb 4 2013||Response Requested . (Due March 6, 2013)|
|Feb 28 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 5, 2013.|
|Apr 3 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Apr 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jun 7 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Walter Fernandez.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 31, 2013.|
|Jun 12 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2013.|
|Jun 25 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.|
|Jun 27 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Gerald P. Peters, Esquire, of Thousand Oaks, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Jul 31 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jul 31 2013||Brief of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed.|
|Aug 7 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 13, 2013|
|Sep 19 2013||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District.(1 box)|
|Sep 25 2013||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 21 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 25 2013||Reply of petitioner Walter Fernandez filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Louis W. Karlin, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, Cal.; and Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Feb 25 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 31 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Mar 31 2014||Record received from Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District has been returned.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.