Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Pearson, et al. v. Callahan

Docket No.: 07-751
Certiorari Granted: 3/24/2008
Argued: October 14, 2008
Decided: January 21, 2009

PartyNames: Cordell Pearson, et al. v. Afton Callahan
Petitioner: Cordell Pearson, et al.
Respondent: Afton Callahan

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Cordell Pearson, et al.
v.
Afton Callahan
555 U.S. ____ (2009)
Background:

BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER THE COURT'S DECISION IN <span style="font-style: italic;">SAUCIER V. KATZ</span>, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) SHOULD BE OVERRULED?"

Question Presented:

(1) Several lower courts have recognized a "consent once removed" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Does this exception authorize police officers to enter a home without a warrant immediately after an undercover informant buys drugs inside (as the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have held), or does the warrantless entry in such circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment (as the Tenth Circuit held below)? (2) Did the Tenth Circuit properly deny qualified immunity when the only decisions directly on point had all upheld similar warrantless entries?

Question:

1)Does a police entry following an informant's signal of probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment under the consent once removed doctrine? 2)Was it clearly established at the time of entry in this case that the consent once removed doctrine violated the Fourth Amendment? 3)Should the Supreme Court's decision in Saucier v. Katz be overturned?

Note:

IN ADDITION TO THE

Holding: judgment reversed
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Read PEARSON, ET AL. V. CALLAHAN opinion (PDF)
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)