CA8: Losing a motion to suppress in state court is collateral estoppel to a § 1983 case over the same search

Losing a motion to suppress in state court is collateral estoppel to a § 1983 case over the same search. Nance v. Humane Society to Pulaski County, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14239 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016):

The Nances’ Fourth Amendment claims are barred by collateral estoppel because they unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the search and seizure in the state criminal case charging them with several counts of animal cruelty. See Simmons v. O’Brien, 77 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 1996) (“When a federal constitutional issue is previously decided in a state criminal proceeding following a full and fair hearing, issue preclusion will therefore bar relitigation of that issue in a § 1983 action.”). We reject the Nances’ contention that they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the search and seizure because the state trial court determined only the issue of consent, and on Sandra’s appeal of her conviction, the Arkansas Supreme Court declined to address her alternative argument that an unlawful search had already started before she gave consent. Under Arkansas law, it was Sandra’s burden to obtain a ruling on her alternative argument in the state trial court, see Nance v. State, 433 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Ark. 2014), and her own failure to preserve a particular argument for state appellate review does not render collateral estoppel inapplicable.