\u201cPetitioner does not argue that he was not provided a correct procedure to redress his Fourth Amendment claim. And indeed, there is no basis for such an argument, as the Second Circuit has indicated that New York’s procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims is \u2018facially adequate.\u2019 Capellan v. Riley, 975 F.2d 67, 70 n.1 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Petitioner also has not argued that the process by which he litigated his Fourth Amendment claims resulted in an unconscionable breakdown. Rather, he has merely disagreed with the trial court’s decision on his motion. See id. at 72 (\u2018[A] mere disagreement with the outcome of a state court ruling is not the equivalent of an unconscionable breakdown in the state’s corrective process.\u2019). Because the state did not fail to provide a \u2018corrective procedure,\u2019 and because the record reflects no \u2018unconscionable breakdown\u2019 of that procedure, Judge Fox correctly found that Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim could not be brought in a habeas petition.\u201d Elliot v. Kirkpatrick, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212518 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPetitioner does not argue that he was not provided a correct procedure to redress his Fourth Amendment claim. And indeed, there is no basis for such an argument, as the Second Circuit has indicated that New York’s procedure for litigating … Continue reading