Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationappealtrialhabeas corpussearch and seizurerespondentseizure
litigationappealtrialhabeas corpussearch and seizurerespondentseizure

Related Cases

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9834
View Case »
Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 141, 896 N.E.2d 937
View Case »
Klaiber v. Orzel, 148 Ariz. 320, 714 P.2d 813
View Case »
Olson v. Olson, 256 Mich.App. 619, 671 N.W.2d 64
View Case »
In re Kiley, 459 Mass. 645, 947 N.E.2d 1
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067

Facts

Respondent Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder in California after a shooting incident at a liquor store, where evidence obtained during his arrest for a vagrancy ordinance was introduced at trial. The trial court rejected his argument that the evidence should be excluded due to the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. Respondent David Rice was convicted of murder in Nebraska, with evidence obtained from a search of his home that he claimed was unlawful. Both respondents sought federal habeas corpus relief after their convictions were affirmed on appeal.

Respondent Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder in June 1968 after trial in a California state court. At about midnight on February 17, 1968, he and three companions entered the Bonanza Liquor Store in San Bernardino, Cal., where Powell became involved in an altercation with Gerald Parsons, the store manager, over the theft of a bottle of wine. In the scuffling that followed Powell shot and killed Parsons' wife.

Issue

Whether a federal court should consider a claim that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at trial when the prisoner has previously had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that claim in state court.

The question presented is whether a federal court should consider, in ruling on a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state prisoner, a claim that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial, when he has previously been afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state courts.

Rule

Where the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure was introduced at his trial.

Held: Where the State, as in each of these cases, has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure was introduced at his trial.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the application of the exclusionary rule in the context of federal habeas corpus, concluding that the contribution of the rule to the effectuation of the Fourth Amendment is minimal compared to the societal costs of applying it. The Court emphasized that the ultimate question of guilt or innocence should be the central concern in criminal proceedings, and that the indiscriminate application of the exclusionary rule could undermine respect for the law.

In this context the contribution of the exclusionary rule, if any, to the effectuation of the Fourth Amendment is minimal as compared to the substantial societal costs of applying the rule.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in federal habeas corpus proceedings when the state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims.

Court of Appeals judgments reversed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply in federal habeas corpus proceedings when a state has provided a full and fair opportunity for litigation of Fourth Amendment claims.

Court of Appeals judgments reversed.

You must be