|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-564||Fla. S. Ct.||Oct 31, 2012||Mar 26, 2013||5-4||Scalia||OT 2012|
Holding: A dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 26, 2013. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 26 2011||Application (11A348) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 5, 2011 to October 27, 2011, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Oct 5 2011||Application (11A348) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until October 27, 2011.|
|Oct 26 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 5, 2011)|
|Oct 26 2011||Appendix of Florida filed.|
|Dec 2 2011||Brief of respondent Joelis Jardines in opposition filed.|
|Dec 2 2011||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent.|
|Dec 5 2011||Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed.|
|Dec 14 2011||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2012.|
|Dec 15 2011||Reply of petitioner Florida filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 6 2012||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Jan 6 2012||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Wayne County, Michigan filed.|
|Feb 17 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 22, 2012.|
|Mar 21 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including April 26, 2012.|
|Apr 26 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Apr 26 2012||Brief of petitioner Florida filed.|
|Apr 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Police Canine Association and Police K-9 Magazine filed.|
|May 3 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|May 3 2012||Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed.|
|May 11 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 25, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2012||Brief of respondent Joelis Jardines filed.|
|Jul 2 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jul 2 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Jul 2 2012||Brief amici curiae of Fourth Amendment Scholars filed.|
|Jul 2 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jul 2 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.|
|Jul 16 2012||Application (12A54) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits from July 25, 2012 to August 9, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Jul 18 2012||Application (12A54) denied by Justice Thomas.|
|Jul 23 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, October 31, 2012|
|Jul 25 2012||Reply of petitioner Florida filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 2 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 22 2012||Record received from Supreme Court of Florida. (1box)|
|Oct 31 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, Miami, Fla.|
|Mar 26 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined.|
|Apr 29 2013||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jun 3 2013||Record returned to Supreme Court of Florida.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.