W.D.Ky.: Illegal stop that was suppressed not excluded in § 1983 case

“Although the marijuana in Codrington’s car was discovered through an unreasonable search, that is immaterial to the Court’s analysis because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to § 1983 proceedings. As long as the marijuana found in Codrington’s car was not fabricated by the officers, they would have had ‘probable cause for his arrest, notwithstanding the previous unlawful stop … [and] the existence of probable cause for the arrest would also bar recovery on a theory of malicious prosecution.’ Martin v. Marinez, 934 F.3d 594, 598-99 (7th Cir. 2019).” Codrington v. Dolak, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76433 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2024).*

There was at least some indicia of probable cause in the affidavit for search warrant, so the warrant was executed in good faith. United States v. Vo Tran, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10068 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024).*

2254 petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for defense counsel’s not raising a challenge to his consent was rejected on the merits. It’s not an unreasonable application of SCOTUS precedent. Harvey v. King, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10179 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Good faith exception, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.