The fact a USMJ issued a search warrant doesn\u2019t preclude that judge from hearing a motion to suppress. United States v. Silva, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233243 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
State court\u2019s finding of procedural default on Fourth Amendment and other claims in state appeals and post-conviction proceedings binds the federal court. Thoresen v. Wheeler, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232903 (D. Minn. Dec. 7, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFor the rule set forth in Stone to apply, the state must have provided, in the abstract, a mechanism by which to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, and the presentation of the claim in the case before the court must not have been frustrated by failure of that mechanism. \u2026 If these two inquiries are satisfied, federal habeas review of the Fourth Amendment claim is precluded, even if the federal court deems the state court determination of the claim to have been in error.\u201d Zabavski v. Shaver, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233203 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact a USMJ issued a search warrant doesn\u2019t preclude that judge from hearing a motion to suppress. United States v. Silva, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233243 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2022). State court\u2019s finding of procedural default on Fourth … Continue reading