W.D.N.Y.: CA2’s deciding search issue in direct appeal with GFE, too, did not violate “party presentation” rule

The Second Circuit upheld the search in this case and threw in an alternative ground, the good faith exception. On habeas, that did not violate the “party presentation” rule where the parties decide the issues to litigate, not the court. United States v. Elder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26410 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2025):

Here, in affirming Elder’s conviction and this Court’s view that the evidence obtained as a result of the search at issue in this case was not subject to suppression, the Circuit simply provided an alternate basis upon which to affirm this court’s judgment. Without question, the Second Circuit has the authority to uphold the validity of a judgment “on any ground that finds support in the record.” Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472, 476 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 584 U.S. 554, 560 (2018) (Court has “discretion to affirm on any ground supported by the law and the record that will not expand the relief granted below”); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 (1943) (“[W]e do not disturb the settled rule that, in reviewing the decision of a lower court, it must be affirmed if the result is correct ‘although the lower court relied upon a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason.'” (quoting Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245 (1937)). That authority includes the right, as the Second Circuit did in this case, to deny a suppression motion without deciding whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199, 209 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Because we conclude that the agents acted in good faith, we need not decide whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. We thus affirm the district court on an alternate ground.”). That is all that happened here. No error occurred.