Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Robert Paul Magtulis Cledera v. United States, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 20-10914 · judgment February 5, 2021

Certiorari denied · October 4, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

2 i 3 4 In Carpenter v United States, No. 16-402, 585 U. S. _ (2018), this court held 5 that the Government’s acquisition of Carpenters cell-site records was a Fourth 6 7 Amendment search. 8 In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), this court held that police 9 generally may not, without a warrant search digital information on a cell phone 10 11 Seized from an indi vidual who has been arrested. 12 In Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), this court held that The Fourth 13 : ; ; 14 Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure extends to any area / 15 where a person expects has a. “reasonable expectation ofprivacy.” 16 t In Florida v Jardines, 11 -564, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) this court held that the 17 18 Governments use of a trained police dog to investigate the home and its immediate 19 surroundings, is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 20 21 In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), this court has stated 22 that the Constitution must always take precedence in any conflict between it and a 23 law passed by Congress. 24 25 What constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation? Does the absence of a 26 crime or arrest void the violation of a civil right? 27 28

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Robert Paul Magtulis Cledera

For respondent
Roy L. Barrett
Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 04 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Aug 18 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
  3. Aug 09 2021
    Waiver of right of respondents Brian Manley, Austin Police Department, Austin, Texas to respond filed.
    Main Document
  4. Aug 09 2021
    Waiver of right of respondents Federal respondents to respond filed.
    Main Document
  5. Aug 09 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. to respond filed.
    Main Document
  6. Aug 05 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Ryan Holt and Waco Police Department, Waco, Texas to respond filed.
    Main Document
  7. Aug 05 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Wal-Mart, Inc. to respond filed.
    Main Document
  8. Aug 05 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Cellco Partnership (incorrectly indentifies as Verizon Communications, Incorporated) to respond filed.
    Main Document
  9. Aug 03 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent RING (Amazon.com, Incorporated) to respond filed.
    Main Document
  10. Aug 03 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. to respond filed.
    Main Document
  11. Aug 03 2021
    Waiver of right of respondents Dallas Area Rapid Transit and Gary Thomas to respond filed.
    Main Document
  12. Aug 02 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent HomePro Operating, LLC to respond filed.
    Main Document
  13. Jul 27 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Ellis County Sheriff Charles Edge to respond filed.
    Main Document
  14. Jul 22 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Apple Inc. to respond filed.
    Main Document
  15. Jul 20 2021
    Waiver of right of respondents Steve Dye, Grand Prairie Police Department, Robert Fite, Grand Prairie Fire Department, City of Grand Prairie, Tracy Aaron, Mansfield Police Department, City of Mansfield to respond filed.
    Main Document
  16. Jul 15 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Ulysha Renee Hall and Dominique Artis to respond filed.
    Main Document
  17. Jul 02 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 9, 2021)
    PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service