W.D.N.Y.: Just saying the Stone bar is “misplaced” isn’t an answer

“In his reply …, Petitioner asserts in conclusory fashion that Respondent’s application of Stone is ‘misplaced.’ … However, he fails to explain why this is so. Nor does he attempt to show that he did not have a ‘full and fair opportunity’ to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims or that there was an ‘unconscionable breakdown’ in New York State’s corrective process. ‘As the Second Circuit explicitly has held, “a mere disagreement with the outcome of a state court ruling is not the equivalent of an unconscionable breakdown in the state’s corrective process.’” Navarro, 2023 WL 8375858, at 6 … Petitioner therefore cannot overcome the preclusive effect of Stone, and the Fourth Amendment claims in Points Two, Three, and Four are barred from habeas review.” Figueroa v. New York, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46104 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2025).

Defendant’s slightly slurred speech caught on bodycam might not have been probable cause, but a bunch of empty beer cans in the back of his pickup and the apparent smell of beer in the truck was. Search warrant valid. State v. Karpin, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 124 (Mar. 13, 2025).*

Defendant’s CSLI argument was lost on direct appeal and can’t be relitigated in his 2255. United States v. Herron, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47240 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2025).*