Defendant was on the lam, and officers, armed with an arrest warrant, entered his house thinking he’d returned there. He wasn’t but observations were made that led to a search warrant for the house. Motion to suppress denied. The arrest warrant coupled with their reasonable belief justified the entry. United States v. Cartagena, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4149 (D.Conn. Jan. 10, 2022).
“Applying [petitioner’s] analysis would turn Stone on its head. It would mean that any time a habeas court concluded the state courts were wrong in their Fourth Amendment analysis, it could reach the merits and grant habeas relief. But Stone is not about whether the state courts got it right, but whether a defendant got a full and fair opportunity to try to persuade them. Hashi makes no procedural claim about the way the motion to suppress was handled. He apparently got the opportunity to present the evidence he thought was material. He received a hearing and a decision from the trial court and then appellate review on his Fourth Amendment claims and as much of an opportunity for Ohio Supreme Court review as most criminal cases receive.” Hashi v. Cook, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4085 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 7, 2022).*