D.Conn.: Def’s failure to testify at the suppression hearing doesn’t make process inadequate

“There is no evidence to suggest that the State of Connecticut did not afford the petitioner a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims. The fact that the petitioner chose not to testify at the hearings before the trial court does not make the state process unavailable or inadequate. Furthermore, his disagreement with the state court’s rulings ‘is not the equivalent of an unconscionable breakdown in the state’s corrective process.’ Capellan, 975 F.2d at 72; Gates v. Henderson, 568 F.2d 830, 840 (2d Cir. 1977) (en banc) (‘Stone v. Powell … holds that we have no authority to review the state record and grant the writ simply because we disagree with the result reached by the state courts.’). The petitioner has not met either of the exceptions to permit the court to review his Fourth Amendment claims. The court concludes that federal review of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims as asserted in the third and fourth grounds of the petition is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stone.” St. Louis v. Erfe, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50185 (D.Conn. April 14, 2016).