In this 2254, the argument was that the state court\u2019s application of law violated 2254’s \u201cunreasonable\u201d application standard, but it didn\u2019t. The question was whether Michigan v. Long or Arizona v. Gant applies. \u201cIn sum, the State courts’ reliance on Long rather than Gant was appropriate given the finding that Calligan was not under arrest at the time of search and given that the record contained sufficient evidence to support that finding. Calligan thus cannot demonstrate that the State courts’ reliance on Long deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims. Therefore, the claim that Calligan was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure is not a basis for habeas relief.\u201d Calligan v. Warden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233849 (N.D.Ind. Dec. 7, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s claim that a shooting isn\u2019t a seizure without an arrest, too, is \u201cimplausible\u201d and completely contrary to precedent. His qualified immunity claim is based on his version of the facts, not the factual disputes. Yatsko v. Graziolli<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36006 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this 2254, the argument was that the state court\u2019s application of law violated 2254’s \u201cunreasonable\u201d application standard, but it didn\u2019t. The question was whether Michigan v. Long or Arizona v. Gant applies. \u201cIn sum, the State courts’ reliance on … Continue reading