Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Desiree Martinez v. Channon High

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-16335 · judgment January 26, 2024


Certiorari denied · November 12, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and counsel who has filed here before.

Question presented

In Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, the Ninth Circuit held that a police officer violates the Constitution when he discloses a police complaint to its subject and places the complainant β€œin danger that she otherwise would not have faced.” 439 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 2006). In this case, a police officer disclosed a domestic violence police complaint to its subject over the phone, even though the police officer knew that the complainant was in a room alone with the subject and could not escape. Applying a rigid standard that does not consider the circumstances faced by the officer, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Kennedy was not specific enough to fairly warn the officer in this case about the unconstitutionality of her conduct. Pet.App. 22a. This standard contrasts with the flexible fair-warning standard applied in the Fifth and Tenth Circuits, where, in cases outside of time-pressured decisions to use force, strict specificity is not necessary. Hughes v. Garcia, 100 F.4th 611, 620 n.1 (5th Cir. 2024); A.N. v. Syling, 928 F.3d 1191, 1199 (10th Cir. 2019). The question presented is, in a situation not involving a time-pressured decision to use force: Whether an officer can be fairly warned about the unconstitutionality of her conduct even when the facts of previous cases are not materially identical to the facts the officer confronts.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Anna Aleksandrovna Bidwell
Institute for Justice

For respondent
Suzanne Michelle Nicholson
Wilke Fleury LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Linked docket
23A1046

Proceedings

  1. Nov 12 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 23 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
  3. Oct 18 2024
    Reply of petitioner Desiree Martinez filed.
  4. Oct 07 2024
    Brief of respondent Channon High in opposition filed.
  5. Sep 05 2024
    Brief amicus curiae of The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed.
  6. Aug 26 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 7, 2024.
  7. Aug 22 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 5, 2024 to October 7, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Aug 12 2024
    Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed.
  9. Aug 02 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 5, 2024)
  10. May 23 2024
    Application (23A1046) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 2, 2024.
  11. May 20 2024
    Application (23A1046) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 4, 2024 to August 2, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.