Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Naray Palaniappan v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 19-1660 · judgment March 17, 2020
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Second Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Questions presented
-
Where a warrant application requested authorization to search computers “wherever located” but the warrant itself (1) stated that the application was to “search [] property located in the Eastern District of Virginia,” (2) omitted the “wherever located” language in describing the computers, and (3) failed to incorporate the application, can government agents rely in good faith on the warrant to search a computer in New York?
-
Where a search warrant fails to “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched,” U.S. Const. Amend. IV, but rather purports to authorize searches of “computers that are those of any user or administrator who logs into” a publicly accessible website, can government agents rely in good faith on the warrant to search thousands of computers around the world?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Zachary Alexander Margulis-Ohnuma
ZMO Law PLLC
For respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 05 2020Petition DENIED.
- Jul 15 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
- Jul 08 2020Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Jun 16 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 3, 2020)