CA6: Stone requires that a habeas petitioner had a method to make 4A claims, not that they would succeed

Petitioner had his opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and did, and the outcome doesn’t matter. The fact that he could do so does. CoA denied. Bugno v. Walters, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3780 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026)*:

Bugno’s first two arguments relate to the merits and sufficiency of the procedure Ohio provided to him. But those petitioner-specific concerns are not relevant to the Stone inquiry, which requires habeas courts to ask two questions: (1) “whether the state procedural mechanism, in the abstract, presents the opportunity to raise a fourth amendment claim” and, (2) “whether presentation of the claim was in fact frustrated because of a failure of that mechanism.” Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir. 1982).

Reasonable jurists would agree that Ohio courts provided Bugno a chance to raise and present his claim. Notably, even if Bugno could show that errors occurred during the trial court’s adjudication of his motion to suppress, he was given an opportunity to appeal those issues. Further, Stone does not require “an inquiry into the adequacy of the procedure actually used to resolve [the Fourth Amendment] claim.” Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir. 2013). Absent a “sham proceeding,” a court does not need to “ask whether the state court conducted an evidentiary hearing” or investigate “the rigor of the state judiciary’s procedures for resolving the claim.” Id. …

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.