CA8: Stone does not apply to § 2255 proceedings

Stone v. Powell does not apply to § 2255 proceedings. Baranski v. United States, 515 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (Comment: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
But ends up in F.3d anyway):

Stone left open the question of whether Fourth Amendment claims may be raised by federal prisoners under § 2255, see Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 262 n.8 (7th Cir. 1990), and it did not overrule Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969). See Stone, 428 U.S. at 479-81 & n.16. In Kaufman, the Court had unequivocally held that a claim of unconstitutional search and seizure is cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding, 394 U.S. at 231, and a Stone footnote suggested a different policy reason might underlie Kaufman because of the Court’s supervisory role over federal proceedings. See 428 U.S. at 481 n.16. It is well recognized that the supervisory power of federal appellate courts over district courts is broader than its authority to review state court decisions under § 2254. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146 (1973). We conclude that Stone does not bar our consideration of the issue certified by the district court, that is whether Groh v. Ramirez would entitle Baranski to prevail on his § 2255 motion.

Defendant doctor consented to a search of patient files in her office as a part of a health care fraud investigation. United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527, 2008 FED App. 0031P (6th Cir. 2008):

Agent Corbitt testified that three members of the TBI investigative team entered Defendant’s office dressed in “business professional” attire, with weapons concealed. Agents identified themselves to Defendant, explained that there was an ongoing investigation and requested access to particular patient files. Defendant inquired about the nature of the investigation but was not informed of the specific nature of the allegations. Following this conversation, Defendant stated it would be “fine” for agents to access requested files and that they “could scan whatever [they] needed to.” Further, Defendant provided agents with a space where they could scan the requested files.