Police questioning and phone searches
Whitby v. Fenner
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Kennie Whitby asked the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit’s refusal to suppress evidence he said came from an Edwards v. Arizona violation and a warrantless search of his cell phone under Riley v.
- Who it affects
- Whitby received no Supreme Court review, and the Court did not decide whether the challenged evidence could be used.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
California. The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide whether the evidence should have been suppressed.
Whitby's filing raised claims about questioning he said violated Edwards v. Arizona and a cellphone search he said violated Riley v. California.
Question presented
DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO SUPPRESS THE FRUITS OF AN EDWARDS v. ARIZONA VIOLATION, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, RESULTING IN A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF PETITIONER ’ S CELL PHONE, RILEY v. CALIFORNIA, FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, ALL OF WHICH RESULTED IN JUDGMENTS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.