|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-132||Cal.||Apr 29, 2014||Jun 25, 2014||9-0||Roberts||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case at the certiorari stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but it is not participating in the case at the merits stage.
Holding: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 25, 2014. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 30 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2013)|
|Aug 12 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Aug 15 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 21 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Sep 3 2013||Response Requested . (Due October 3, 2013)|
|Sep 27 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Oct 16 2013||Reply of petitioner David Leon Riley filed.|
|Nov 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 6, 2013.|
|Dec 3 2013||Record Requested .|
|Dec 23 2013||Record received. California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District and San Diego Superior Court (1 box)|
|Dec 31 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014.|
|Jan 17 2014||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether evidence admitted at petitioner's trial was obtained in a search of petitioner's cell phone that violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 29, 2014|
|Feb 18 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 19 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, rece8ved from counsel for the respondent.|
|Mar 3 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief of petitioner David Leon Riley filed.|
|Mar 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law Professors in support of private parties filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Library Assciation, and The Internet Archive in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology, and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of DKT Liberty Project filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Press Photographers Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors Charles E. MacLean & Adam Lamparello filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed. (Reprinted) (Distributed)|
|Apr 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 18 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2014||Reply of petitioner David Leon Riley filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 29 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 25 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED with No. 13-212.|
|Jul 28 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 28 2014||Record returned for Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.|
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.