Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Mark Elliott Stuart v. Arizona
Paid petition · Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 20-0620 · judgment November 30, 2021
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
.r an.in i m . m ■ " The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." City of Houston u. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 463 (1987) “He does not have the right based on his beliefs about the 1st Amendment to simply refuse orders from police officers.... There is no prerequisite that the State show in advance somehow that a directive to the defendant is something that is lawful. It has to be an order in furtherance of the discharge of the officer’s duty... It is not the lawfulness of the order that matters.” Scottsdale prosecutor, Feb. 10, 2020 QUESTIONS PRESENTED
-
Whether Scottsdale Revised Code 19-13 is overbroad and violates the First Amendment?
-
Whether Scottsdale Revised Code 19-13 is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Fourteenth Amendment? r i‘
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Mark Elliott Stuart
For respondent
Kenneth M. Flint
City of Scottdale Prosecutor's Offce
Proceedings
- Jan 09 2023Petition DENIED.
- Nov 30 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
- Nov 16 2022Waiver of right of respondent City of Scottsdale to respond filed.
- Oct 29 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2022)
- Aug 19 2022Application (22A154) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 31, 2022.
- Aug 15 2022Application (22A154) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.