OH6: Exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones

The exclusionary rule only applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones.
State of Ohio/City of Or. v. Hendricks, 2026-Ohio-1796 (6th Dist. May 15, 2026).*

Under Stone, “The only relevant question for this federal habeas Court is whether Butler was given a chance to present his Fourth Amendment claim to the Ohio state courts. Butler filed a motion to suppress, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion. Butler was not denied the opportunity to appeal. Butler was not denied an opportunity to present his claim in state courts and, as a result, Ground Three is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus review.” Butler v. Warden, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107995 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2026).*

The witness was able to authenticate from photographs the drugs defendant discarded. United States v. Baker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108442 (W.D. La. May 15, 2026).*

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

Comments are closed.