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 …
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
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 added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- February 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 ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Denied
The court's record, as written
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…
Outcome words in this text: denying.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links