Wallace v. NH

2002 DNH 033

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 30, 2002
• Docket: CV-01-221-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Wallace v. NH CV-01-221-M 01/30/02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Leroy Wallace, Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 01-221-M Opinion No. 2002 DNH 033 Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Defendant

O R D E R

Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his state court burglary

conviction, on grounds that evidence presented against him was

obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has exhausted available state remedies and the State

moves to dismiss the petition. Although for reasons different

from those urged by the State, the petition for habeas relief is

necessarily dismissed.

Petitioner seeks habeas relief on grounds that the state

courts should have excluded some incriminating evidence from his

criminal trial that he alleges was derived from an investigatory stop carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That

unsuppressed evidence contributed to his conviction of burglary.

But, "a federal habeas court ordinarily cannot revisit a state

court's disposition of a prisoner's Fourth Amendment claims."

Sanna v. Dipaolo, 265 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2001). As the Supreme

Court has held, "[W]here the State has provided an opportunity

for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the

Constitution does not reguire that a state prisoner be granted

federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained

in an unconstitutional . . . seizure was introduced at his

trial." Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976).

There is an exception to the Stone rule. A petitioner may

pursue Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule claims in a federal

habeas proceeding if he was denied a full and fair opportunity to

litigate those issues in the state courts. See Sanna, supra.

Petitioner here cannot invoke that exception, however. His

defense counsel filed a written pretrial motion to suppress the

derivative evidence in the state court; a full evidentiary

hearing was held; a written decision was issued by the trial

court; a motion to reconsider denial of the motion was considered

2 and resolved; and petitioner's suppression issues were fully

briefed and argued on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court,

which resolved those claims in a published opinion.1 State v.

Wallace, 772 A.2d 892 (N.H. 2001) .

Moreover, the State having "made available to defendants a

set of procedures suitably crafted to test for possible Fourth

Amendment violations . . . a federal habeas court lacks the

authority, under Stone, to second-guess the accuracy of the state

court's resolution of those claims." Sanna, 265 F.3d at 9

(citing Carver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188, 1192 (5th Cir. 1978).

Accordingly, petitioner's basic assertion - that the state courts

erred in denying his suppression motion - "cannot be treated as

a denial of the opportunity fully and fairly to litigate a Fourth

Amendment claim (and, thus, cannot open the door to federal

habeas review)." Sanna, 265 F.3d at 9 (citations omitted).

The petition for writ of habeas corpus in necessarily

dismissed under the Stone bar.

1 See Exhibit A (transcript of suppression hearing) ; Exhibit B, Appendix E (decision denying motion to suppress); and Exhibit B, Appendix H (motion to reconsider suppression ruling denied), all of which are attached to the petition.

3 SO ORDERED

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

January 30, 2002

cc: Leroy Wallace Nicholas P. Cort, Esq.