\u201cBecause Stone v. Powell prohibits this Court’s consideration of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge’s denial of expansion of the record to include the dash cam footage is affirmed because consideration of that footage is prohibited by Stone. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to decline merits review of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is adopted and the Clerk will therefore enter judgment dismissing the Petition with prejudice.\u201d Dunbar v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43251 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs the Petition recites, Andrews was able to fully litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in the Ohio courts through a motion to suppress in the trial court, on which that court held a full evidentiary hearing, then on appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals and finally to the Ohio Supreme Court. \u2026 Petitioner’s first three claims are all substantive Fourth Amendment claims; he does not assert he was deprived of the full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims which Ohio law provides to all felony defendants.\u201d Andrews v. Scioto Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43261 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBecause Stone v. Powell prohibits this Court’s consideration of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge’s denial of expansion of the record to include the dash cam footage is affirmed because consideration of that footage is prohibited by Stone. The … Continue reading