Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Latonia Smith v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-5419 · judgment June 20, 2025
Certiorari denied · January 20, 2026
Question presented
In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), this Court established that cell phones require enhanced Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The question presented is whether, consistent with Riley, a warrant that fails to particularly describe cell phones as an item to be seized—only listing “computers” and “electronic data storage devices”— violates the Fourth Amendment.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Justine Mitsuko Bonner
Federal Public Defender - District of Oregon
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jan 20 2026Petition DENIED.
- Dec 31 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
- Dec 22 2025Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Dec 09 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2026)