The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Oprisko v. Director
No. 151450Supreme Court of Virginia
151450 Oprisko v. Director 02/09/2017 In a habeas corpus petition, the circuit court did not err in denying the sole claim for relief, arguing that the doctrine of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), that …
Clerk language is kept verbatim. Vote Files does not infer who is winning.The movement
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The proof
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
151450 Oprisko v. Director 02/09/2017 In a habeas corpus petition, the circuit court did not err in denying the sole claim for re…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First seen
- Oct 4, 2026
- Last entry
- Feb 9, 2017
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
151450 Oprisko v. Director 02/09/2017 In a habeas corpus petition, the circuit court did not err in denying the sole claim for relief, arguing that the doctrine of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), that use of a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment applies retroactively. On the contrary, this decision by the Supreme Court of the United States announced a new rule of constitutional law that was not dictated by precedent -- indeed the large majority of federal appellate courts and state courts of last resort had reached a contrary conclusion under prior law -- and therefore the habeas court did not err in determining that the de…
Open court document ↗Documents and links