Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Jon Eric Shaffer v. Pennsylvania
Paid petition · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, No. 16 WAP 2018 · judgment June 18, 2019
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Questions presented
In United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), this Court held that government agents did not need a warrant to reopen an “ordinary cardboard box” because private actors had previously opened the box. Id. at 111. The Court reasoned that the private actors’ initial search eliminated the owner’s “legitimate expectation of privacy.” Id. at 120. Because government agents could have “virtual certainty” that reopening an ordinary box would reveal “nothing else of significance,” doing so was not “a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 115-21. In lower courts, Jacobsen has birthed a general exception to the Fourth Amendment, called the “privatesearch doctrine.” It is now “one of the most convoluted and misunderstood corners to the Fourth Amendment.” Ben A. McJunkin, The Private-Search Doctrine Does Not Exist, 2018 WIS. L. REV. 971, 972 (2018). Today, the government uses Jacobsen “most frequently” not to reopen a box, but for constitutionally exempt searches of digital data. Id. at 984. The questions are:
-
Does the “virtual certainty” that reopening “an ordinary cardboard box” will expose nothing beyond the private actor’s earlier search, Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 119, authorize constitutionally exempt searches of digital devices, like a personal and business laptop?
-
When the government “obtains information by physically intruding” on property, United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 406 n.3 (2012), is that trespass overlooked simply because a private actor previously examined the property? In other words, is Jacobsen rendered obsolete in light of the property-based test? (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Amir H. Ali
Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
For respondent
Christopher Joseph Schmidt
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
Proceedings
- May 04 2020Petition DENIED.
- Apr 15 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
- Apr 13 2020Reply of petitioner Jon Eric Shaffer filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 25 2020Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until April 15, 2020, granted.
- Mar 24 2020Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from April 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 12 2020Brief of respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in opposition filed.
- Feb 13 2020Response Requested. (Due March 16, 2020)
- Jan 22 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
- Jan 13 2020Waiver of right of respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to respond filed.
- Dec 16 2019Brief amici curiae of The DKT Liberty Project, et al. filed.
- Dec 16 2019Brief amicus curiae of Professor Ben A. McJunkin filed.
- Dec 13 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 15, 2020.
- Dec 11 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 16, 2019 to January 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 13 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 16, 2019)
- Sep 30 2019Application (19A224) to extend further the time from October 16, 2019 to October 13, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Sep 30 2019Application (19A224) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 13, 2019.
- Aug 26 2019Application (19A224) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 16, 2019.
- Aug 23 2019Application (19A224) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 16, 2019 to October 16, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.