Wallace v. NH CV-01-221-M 01/30/02
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Leroy Wallace,
Plaintiff
v. Civil No. 01-221-M
Opinion No. 2002 DNH 033
Commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Corrections,
Defendant
O R D E R
Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his state court burglary
conviction, on grounds that evidence presented against him was
obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner has exhausted available state remedies and the State
moves to dismiss the petition. Although for reasons different
from those urged by the State, the petition for habeas relief is
necessarily dismissed.
Petitioner seeks habeas relief on grounds that the state
courts should have excluded some incriminating evidence from his
criminal trial that he alleges was derived from an investigatory
stop carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That
unsuppressed evidence contributed to his conviction of burglary.
But, "a federal habeas court ordinarily cannot revisit a state
court's disposition of a prisoner's Fourth Amendment claims."
Sanna v. Dipaolo, 265 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2001). As the Supreme
Court has held, "[W]here the State has provided an opportunity
for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the
Constitution does not reguire that a state prisoner be granted
federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained
in an unconstitutional . . . seizure was introduced at his
trial." Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976).
There is an exception to the Stone rule. A petitioner may
pursue Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule claims in a federal
habeas proceeding if he was denied a full and fair opportunity to
litigate those issues in the state courts. See Sanna, supra.
Petitioner here cannot invoke that exception, however. His
defense counsel filed a written pretrial motion to suppress the
derivative evidence in the state court; a full evidentiary
hearing was held; a written decision was issued by the trial
court; a motion to reconsider denial of the motion was considered
2
and resolved; and petitioner's suppression issues were fully
briefed and argued on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court,
which resolved those claims in a published opinion.1 State v.
Wallace, 772 A.2d 892 (N.H. 2001) .
Moreover, the State having "made available to defendants a
set of procedures suitably crafted to test for possible Fourth
Amendment violations . . . a federal habeas court lacks the
authority, under Stone, to second-guess the accuracy of the state
court's resolution of those claims." Sanna, 265 F.3d at 9
(citing Carver v. Alabama,
577 F.2d 1188, 1192 (5th Cir. 1978).
Accordingly, petitioner's basic assertion - that the state courts
erred in denying his suppression motion - "cannot be treated as
a denial of the opportunity fully and fairly to litigate a Fourth
Amendment claim (and, thus, cannot open the door to federal
habeas review)." Sanna,
265 F.3d at 9 (citations omitted).
The petition for writ of habeas corpus in necessarily
dismissed under the Stone bar.
1 See Exhibit A (transcript of suppression hearing) ;
Exhibit B, Appendix E (decision denying motion to suppress); and
Exhibit B, Appendix H (motion to reconsider suppression ruling
denied), all of which are attached to the petition.
3
SO ORDERED
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
January 30, 2002
cc: Leroy Wallace
Nicholas P. Cort, Esq.
4
