Stone v. Powell bar cannot be avoided by creative Fourteenth Amendment argument of a real Fourth Amendment claim

Habeas petitioner’s attempt to cast manufactured exigent circumstances claim as a Fourteenth Amendment issue rather than a Fourth Amendment issue did not circumvent Stone. COA denied. Barber v. Jones, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11526 (10th Cir. May 28, 2008):

Mr. Barber argues that Stone does not apply to this issue, because the arresting officers’ conduct in “creating an ‘exigent circumstance’ through fraud and de[]ception … was in violation of the 14th Amendment and that is not the same as the 4th Amendment.” Aplt. Br. at 16. A person who asserts that his arrest or physical incarceration was unreasonable or unwarranted, however, is making a Fourth Amendment argument-he cannot use the Fourteenth Amendment as “a fallback to protect interests more specifically addressed by the Fourth Amendment in this context.” Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 919 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Barber’s claim is a Fourth Amendment claim, and it is barred by Stone.

District court’s finding that defendant was not an overnight guest with standing was supported by the evidence. United States v. Smith, 282 Fed. Appx. 143 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

Defendant failed to show a Franks violation. United States v. Hawkins, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439, 2008 FED App. 0292N (6th Cir. May 23, 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.