LA4: Exclusionary rule not applied in civil service hearing

Applying a balancing test, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule should not apply in a civil service hearing. (However, the punishment for the offense of allegedly drinking on the job based on a BAC test of .03 was excessive.) Crayton v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1099 (La. App. 4 Cir. July 9, 2024).

Petitioner seeks to avoid application of Stone by (1) challenging the adequacy of the procedures used to examine this claim …, (2) asserting that alleged inadequacies in the state court proceedings on this claim mean that Stone does not apply …, and (3) asserting that Stone is no longer good law due to the AEDPA …. However, the Court finds these arguments unpersuasive, as (1) the record demonstrates that the state court proceedings regarding Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim were not a sham; (2) Petitioner’s underlying state court proceedings on his Fourth Amendment claim were at least as thorough as those in Good, and (3) the Sixth Circuit has applied Stone after passage of the AEDPA. … Accordingly, Stone prohibits the Court from addressing the merits of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, and Petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2254 for this claim.” Roberson v. Eller, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121126 (E.D. Tenn. July 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.