Dual sovereignty: W.D.Mich: The defense can’t relitigate grant of state court suppression of the same evidence in federal court (but the federal government can)

2255 petitioner originally had a motion to suppress granted in state court, and the federal government indicted him. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to argue collateral estoppel, and issue foreclosed under circuit precedent. Miller v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207599 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2024):

Defendant’s reliance on the doctrine of collateral estoppel is also foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent. In Tinsley v. United States, the Sixth Circuit addressed Tinsley’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. See Tinsley v. United States, No. 95-5564, 1997 WL 63156, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 1997). In his § 2255 motion, Tinsley had argued that “the district court erred in admitting evidence from the October 30, 1987[,] search based on the Lincoln Circuit court’s earlier suppression of the same evidence.” Id. at *7. The Sixth Circuit, citing Elkins, concluded that Tinsley’s argument lacked merit. Id. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit noted that, under Elkins, the district court “properly made an independent determination of the admissibility of the evidence” and that Tinsley’s “argument that the district court should have been constrained by the prior evidentiary rulings of the state court lacks merit.” Id. Prior to Tinsley, the Sixth Circuit ruled similarly in United States v. Lloyd, stating that “[a] prior adverse suppression decision in a state court simply does not preclude the federal government, which was not a party to the state action, from using the evidence in a federal proceeding. United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1209 (6th Cir. 1993).

Likewise, in 2004, the Sixth Circuit considered “the interest issue of what preclusive force a Michigan state criminal proceeding may have upon the course of a subsequent federal criminal proceeding.” United States v. Dominguez, 359 F.3d 839, 841 (6th Cir. 2004). Dominguez was charged in Michigan state court with drug trafficking charges after a joint state-federal task force executed a search warrant and found cocaine in Dominguez’s car. Id. The state trial court suppressed all the evidence and dismissed the state charges against Dominguez without prejudice. Id. The federal government subsequently indicted Dominguez on federal drug trafficking charges. Id. Dominguez moved to suppress the evidence, and the district court granted his motion after finding “that the United States was collaterally estopped from litigating that issue as a privy to the state of Michigan.” Id. The government then appealed. Id.

The panel in Dominguez concluded that the district court had misinterpreted applicable state law, reversed the grant of the motion to suppress, and remanded for further proceedings. Id. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “a Michigan court applying Michigan law would not find based upon the facts in the record that the United States was in privity with the Michigan prosecutor in the prior state proceeding.” Id. at 845. The panel went on to note that “[e]ven if Michigan law did create privity between the federal and state governments as a matter of law, we would have grave doubts as to the propriety of estopping a federal prosecutor on these grounds.” Id.