E.D.Mich.: Younger bars federal injunction against state criminal prosecution

Younger bars an injunction against defendant’s criminal prosecution for an alleged illegal search. McDowell v. Plymouth Twp. Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96568 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2024).

“Reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s denial of Moore’s claim that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the denial of his motion to suppress and the admission of the results of his blood-alcohol test.” Ohio law provided a remedy, and disagreement with the results isn’t reason for habeas. CoA denied. Moore v. Hildebrand, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12915 (6th Cir. May 29, 2024).*

“The officers had reason to believe that evidence of a crime was in the vehicle. At the suppression hearing, the district court found that knowledge concerning Broussard’s activity the morning of the arrest and months-long investigation established probable cause. A few hours before the stop, law enforcement observed Broussard, a convicted felon, with a handgun around a known drug trafficking house. Broussard went out of sight and, simultaneously, a Honda Accord was seen leaving the premises. This amounted to probable cause to pull Broussard over because, although the officers were not certain Broussard was in the Honda, the officers correctly relied on their own inferences and experiences to stop the car.” United States v. Broussard, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12891 (5th Cir. May 29, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.