{"id":2118,"date":"2008-12-24T06:27:28","date_gmt":"2008-05-31T10:04:40","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-31T10:04:40","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2118","title":{"rendered":"<em>Stone v. Powell<\/em> bar cannot be avoided by creative Fourteenth Amendment argument of a real Fourth Amendment claim"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Habeas petitioner&#8217;s attempt to cast manufactured exigent circumstances claim as a Fourteenth Amendment issue rather than a Fourth Amendment issue did not circumvent <em>Stone<\/em>. COA denied. Barber v. Jones, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11526 (10th Cir. May 28, 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Mr. Barber argues that <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=428&amp;invol=465\"><em>Stone<\/em><\/a> does not apply to this issue, because the arresting officers&#8217; conduct in &#8220;creating an &#8216;exigent circumstance&#8217; through fraud and de[]ception &#8230; was in violation of the 14th Amendment and that is not the same as the 4th Amendment.&#8221; Aplt. Br. at 16. A person who asserts that his arrest or physical incarceration was unreasonable or unwarranted, however, is making a Fourth Amendment argument-he cannot use the Fourteenth Amendment as &#8220;a fallback to protect interests more specifically addressed by the Fourth Amendment in this context.&#8221; <em>Becker v. Kroll<\/em>, 494 F.3d 904, 919 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Barber&#8217;s claim is a Fourth Amendment claim, and it is barred by <em>Stone<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>District court&#8217;s finding that defendant was not an overnight guest with standing was supported by the evidence. <a href=\"http:\/\/vls.law.villanova.edu\/locator\/3d\/May2008\/064916np.pdf\">United States v. Smith<\/a>, 282 Fed. Appx. 143 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant failed to show a <em>Franks<\/em> violation. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/08a0292n-06.pdf\">United States v. Hawkins<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439, 2008 FED App. 0292N (6th Cir. May 23, 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2118\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}