W.D.N.Y.: For Stone, the federal courts don’t second-guess the state court’s 4A decisions

“While those facts do not necessarily compel the conclusion that the warrantless search of the garbage tote was justified by the emergency exception, that is not the question before me. As stated, it is not this Court’s function to second-guess the state courts, or to decide whether I would have reached the same conclusion. The question is whether the state court’s ruling was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. The answer to both questions is ‘no.’ Since the Appellate Division reasonably determined that a motion to suppress would not have been successful, its conclusion that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make such a motion was likewise neither unreasonable nor contrary to clearly established federal law.” Lively v. Royce, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237025 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021).*

Plaintiff does not show a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell from seizure of his legal materials. As to the First Amendment claim for access to the courts, he doesn’t show that actually happened to cause him any harm. Rickerson v. Rust, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36489 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Prison and jail searches. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.