Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02495/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02495-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mickey Clarence Rosenquist, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Attorney General of the State of

Arizona, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-2495-PHX-FJM (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Mickey Clarence Rosenquist filed a timely, fully exhausted Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging his convictions in state court following a jury trial. The

jury convicted Rosenquist of the following offenses: (1) manufacture of a dangerous drug;

(2) possession of dangerous drugs; (3) possession of drug paraphernalia; and (4) reckless

child abuse. The trial court imposed concurrent prison terms, the longest being 7 years. In

his petition, he seeks habeas relief on one ground which was litigated in the trial court and

raised on direct review: that failure to suppress the search warrant evidence violated his

Fourth Amendment rights because the warrant lacked probable cause and there was no

evidence justifying a nighttime entry to execute the warrant. Respondents argue that

Rosenquist’s Fourth Amendment claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. The

Court agrees and recommends that Rosenquist’s petition be denied and dismissed with

prejudice.

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Rosenquist filed a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing there was no “good cause”

justifying a nighttime execution of the search warrant under A.R.S. § 13-3917, attaching the

search log and search warrant affidavit as exhibits (Doc. #16, Exh V at 31, 36, 43). At a trial

management hearing, defense counsel moved to continue the scheduled suppression hearing

because the search warrant affiant had not been subpoenaed. The prosecutor objected to the

continuance and requested a ruling on the motion to suppress. The trial court ruled that the

officer’s testimony was not relevant to the motion and that there was probable cause for a

nighttime search warrant (Id., Exh W, Minute Entry of 4/1/05). Rosenquist sought leave to

challenge the probable cause ruling, contending that the search warrant was not supported

by probable cause and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable (Id,

Exh V at 47). He also argued again that the affidavit lacked good cause for the nighttime

execution of the warrant (Id.). Following the conclusion of a suppression hearing, the trial

court identified three inaccuracies in the affidavit, but ruled they were not material and

denied the motion to suppress (Doc. #16, Exh W, Minute Entry of 5/6/05).

At a subsequent trial management hearing, the trial court set a date for another

suppression hearing on the issue of whether the search warrant had been executed prior to

judicial authorization. Following several continuances of that hearing, on the date scheduled

for the resumption of the suppression hearing, Rosenquist conceded that the officers had a

signed search warrant at the time they entered the residence. The Court denied the motion

to suppress on that issue (Id., Minute Entry of 9/16/05). The court of appeals ruled that

probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant and that there was sufficient

information presented to the magistrate demonstrating good cause for an immediate,

nighttime search (Doc. #16, Exh L). The Arizona Supreme Court denied review (Id., Exh

N).

 A person convicted in state court may not challenge the conviction in a federal habeas

proceeding on the ground of an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth

Amendment as long as the state prisoner has been provided a full and fair opportunity to

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Rosenquist contends in his reply that he is arguing a due process violation based not

on the unreasonableness of the search but “on the arbitrary action of government officials in

selecting Rosenquist’s house to search and the arbitrary action of the use of a nighttime

search to execute the search warrant on his property.” What he has in fact argued in state

court and in his federal petition is that the warrant was utterly lacking in probable cause and

there was no evidence to justify the nighttime entry. See Doc. #8, Amended Petition at 6.

- 3 -

litigate the claim in state court. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976). The relevant

question is whether the state prisoner was given such an opportunity and not whether the

prisoner actually challenged the conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds1 or whether the

state courts correctly decided the issue. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.

1996). Rosenquist filed more than one motion to suppress, and was afforded more than one

hearing. The Court agrees with Respondents that the record reflects that Rosenquist was

afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims, thus precluding

federal review. Powell, 428 U.S. at 482.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Mickey Rosenquist’s Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #8).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/24/10 Page 4 of 4