S.D.Ohio: There is no the state courts got it “really wrong” exception to Stone

“Paraphrased, this amounts to arguing that if the state courts got the Fourth Amendment issues really wrong, the habeas court can put Stone aside and decide the merits of the Fourth Amendment claims. [¶] Hashi cites no authority in support of this supposedly ‘fundamental distinction.’ Instead he cites United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982), and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 (1979). These cases come nowhere near recognizing any such distinction. Frady holds the procedural default analysis developed in § 2254 cases … is fully applicable to § 2255 motions. Jackson holds the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases is a constitutional requirement under the Due Process Clause. Thus Hashi has not shown the existence of the fundamental distinction he claims. Moreover, the Objections make no attempt to apply thus distinction: they do not attempt to show where the Fifth District’s analysis of the Fourth Amendment claims is wrong.” Hashi v. Cook, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15538 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 28, 2022).

Officers can make objectively reasonable mistakes about whether the facts support their stop. Here, the video shows what a reasonable person would see was defendant’s rolling stop of his motorcycle. United States v. Melgoza, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15522 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 27, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.