Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06867/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN BRADFORD, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6867 WMW HC

Petitioner, 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE

 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

J. SOLIS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

DISCUSSION

In this action, Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress

evidence obtained through the search of his car following a traffic stop. He claims that the trial court’s

decision on the issue was contrary to United States Supreme Court precedent regarding the Fourth

Amendment, and that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to support the search 

A federal district court cannot grant habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence was

obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure if the state court has provided the petitioner with a

"full and fair opportunity to litigate" the Fourth Amendment issue. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494,

Case 1:03-cv-06867-WMW Document 18 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052 (1976); Woolery v. Arvan, 8 F.3d 1325, 1326 (9th Cir. 1993), cert denied, 511 U.S.

1057 (1994). The only inquiry this court can make is whether petitioner had a fair opportunity to litigate

his claim, not whether petitioner did litigate nor even whether the court correctly decided the claim.

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996); see, also, Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610,

613 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that because Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5 provides opportunity to challenge

evidence, dismissal under Stone was necessary).

The policy behind the Stone Court's analysis is that the exclusionary rule is applied to stop future

unconstitutional conduct of law enforcement. Stone, 428 U.S. at 492. However, excluding evidence

that is not untrustworthy creates a windfall to the defendant at a substantial societal cost. See Stone, 428

U.S. at 489-90; Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1327-28. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has described the rationale for this

rule by saying:

The holding is grounded in the Court's conclusion that in cases where a petitioner's

Fourth Amendment claim has been adequately litigated in state court, enforcing the

exclusionary rule through writs of habeas corpus would not further the deterrent and

educative purposes of the rule to an extent sufficient to counter the negative effect such

a policy would have on the interests of judicial efficiency, comity and federalism. 

Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1326; see also Stone, 428 U.S. at 493-494.

In this case, Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was litigated through a suppression hearing

in the trial court, on his direct appeal (Unpublished Opinion in case no. F040090), and on his petition

for review before the California Supreme Court, which was summarily denied. This court must find,

therefore, that Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim before the state courts.

Accordingly, this court cannot grant Petitioner habeas corpus relief on his Fourth Amendment claim.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus

is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case.

Case 1:03-cv-06867-WMW Document 18 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06867-WMW Document 18 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 3