Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , A r i s t edes Z avar as , t he exe cut i ve * di r ect orof the C ol or ado D epart m entof C or r ect i ons ( C D O C ) , i s s ubs t i tut ed for J oe O r t i z, t he form erexec ut i ve di r ect orof the C D O C , as appel l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 18, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT JA S O N A L A N C A P P E L L I,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. A R I ST E D E S Z A V A R A S, E xecut i ve * Di r e c t o r ; THE A TTOR NEY GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1035 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 0 0 2 3 7 - WYD)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HENR Y and AN DE RS ON , C i r cui tJ udges , and BROR BY , S e n io r C irc u it J udge. J as on A l an C appel l i , a C ol or ado s t at e pr i s oner , fi l ed a 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . T he fe der al di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed r el i ef a nd- 2-

d en ied a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili ty(C O A ). M r. C ap p ell i app ea led. T h is co u rt grant ed a C O A and ordered bri efi ng as t o “w hetherthe ab sence o f a sw orn arr est w arr antvi ol at ed the Four t h A m endmentand affec t ed the val i di tyof the pr ocee di ngs t o r evoke M r . C appel l i ’ s pr obat i on. . . . , i ncl udi ng w hetherthe di s t r i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed S to n e v . P o w e ll , 42 8 U . S . 46 5 (197 6), t o an arr est w arr ant . ” O r derat4. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) , and w e affi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of M r . C appel l i ’ s § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on. I . Backg r ound I n excha nge fort he di s m i s s al of thr ee otherchar ges , M r . C appel l i pl ed gui l t yt o one fe l onychar ge of a t t empt ed s econd- degr ee bur gl aryand one m i s demeanorchar ge of theft . Pur s uantt o the pl ea a gr eement , t he part i es ent er ed i nt o a s t i pul at i on fora deferr ed j udgm entand s ent ence , underw hi ch the entryof j udgm entand convi ct i on on M r . C appel l i ’ s pl ea w as defe rr ed forfoury ear s fr om J une 21, 1996. A s a r es ul t , he w as pl ace d on pr obat i on fort he four - y earper i od dur i ng w hi ch the j udgm entand s ent ence on the fe l onychar ge w er e deferr ed, and he r ece i ved one y earof pr obat i on on the mi s demeanorchar ge, t o run c o n c u rr e n tly. O n A pr i l 11, 2000, M r . C appel l i ’ s pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a c om pl ai ntfor r evoca t i on of hi s defe r r ed j udgm entand s ent ence on the fe l onychar ge, al l egi ng t hathe had vi ol at ed tw o t erm s of the s t i pul at i on: he had c om m i t t ed a c r i m i nal- 3-

o ffen se d u ri n g the d eferral pe ri o d , an d h e h ad fa il ed to p ayresti tuti o n an d co u rt cost s. O n A pri l 12 , 20 00 , t he C olor ado tri al cou rti ssued a w arr ant for the arr est of M r . C appel l i , w ho w as , att hatt i m e, i n the cus t odyof the C ol or ado D epart m ent o f C o rr e c tio n s (C D O C ) o n o th e r c h a rg e s . T hr ough couns el , M r . C appel l i fi l ed a mot i on t o quas h the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s r evoca t i on compl ai nt , as s er t i ng thatthe C ol or ado tr i al courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the compl ai ntw as s i gned bythe pr obat i on offi cer , notthe d i s t r i c ta t t o r n e y . T h e t r i a l c o u r tr e c e i v e d b r i e fi n g o n th e mo t i o n , c o n d u c t e d two h e a rin g s o n th e iss u e , an d d e n ied M r. C a p p e lli ’s m o tio n — c o n c lu d in g th a t ev e n in t he abs ence of the di s t r i ctatt or ney ’ s s i gnatur e, the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s r evoca t i on c o m p lain t sa tisfied th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e re lev a n t sta te s tatu te, C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 16- 7- 403. A ft era r evoca t i on hear i ng, the tr i al courthel d thatthe s t at e had pr oven both count s of the r evoca t i on compl ai nt , ent er ed a j udgm entof convi ct i on o n t h e u n d e r l yi n g fe l o n y c h a r g e t o w h i c h M r . C a p p e l l i h a d o r i g i n a l l y p l e d g u i l t y, a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o e i g h t e e n mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n ti n th e CDOC. I n 2001, M r . C appel l i appea l ed, cont endi ng the C ol or ado tr i al cour tdi d not have j ur i s di ct i on ( 1) t o cons i derthe r evoca t i on compl ai ntbeca us e i tw as not s i gned byt he di s t r i ctat t or ney , or( 2) t o i s s ue the arr es tw arr antbeca us e i tw as pr edi cat ed upon the uns w or n r evoca t i on compl ai nts i gned bythe pr obat i on offi cer , i ns t ead of

a w r i t t en oath oraff

i r m at i on as r equi r ed bythe s t at e and fede r al cons t i tut i ons . I n M ay2002, the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed the- 4-

r evoca t i on of M r . C appel l i ’ s defe rr ed j udgm entand s ent ence , hol di ng, as t o the first iss u e ra ise d , tha t P e op le v . Za b a la , 7 0 6 P . 2 d 8 0 7 , 8 0 8 (C o lo. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 5 ), w as “di s pos i t i ve, ” and thatM r . C appel l i ’ s r el i ance on P eop l e v. B erquis t , 9 1 6 P .2 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 0 -3 1 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), w a s “ m is p la c e d .” A p lt. A p p . a t 7 0 . T h e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls lik e w ise rejec ted th e se c o n d iss u e ra ise d b yM r. C a p p e lli , s t at i ng t hatC ol o. R ev. St at . § 16- 7- 403 r equi r es t he tr i al courtt o r el yupon t he “r eportof a pr obat i on o ffic e r,” n o t, a s th e d e fe n d a n t s u g g e s ts , a s w o rn a p p lic a tio n . C ons i s t entw i th t he s t atut e, the tr i al courtr evi ew ed the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s compl ai ntand bas ed ther eon found pr obabl e ca us e that d e fe n d a n t h a d v io late d th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is s tip u latio n a n d th a t a w a r r a n tw a s r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a ry. D efe ndantdoes notar t i cul at e how he w as pr ej udi ced bythe i s s uance of the w arr ant . I n fac t , w hen the arr es tw arr antw as i s s ued, t he evi dence t o s uppor tt he r evoca t i on had bee n gather ed, and defe ndantw as al r eadyi ncar cer at ed atthe D epart m entof C or r ect i ons fo r a s e p a ra te c o n v ic tio n ; th e re fo re , th e e rr o r, i f a n y , w a s h a rm le s s . S ee H oll i s v. P eop l e, 63 0 P . 2d 68 , 69 (C olo. 19 81 ) ( err or i s harm l ess w her e no pr ej udi ce i s s how n) . T hus , w e r ej ectthi s cont ent i on. A pl t . A pp. at71- 72. I n D ece m ber2002, the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tdeni ed M r . C appel l i ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i . M r . C appel l i di d noti ni t i at e any st at e po st -convict i on proceed i ng s. M r . C appel l i t hen fi l ed a pr o s e 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof h ab ea s co rpu s in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of C o lorad o . In t hi s t i m el ypet i t i on, he al l eged thatthe C ol or ado tr i al cour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the di s t r i ctatt or neydi d nots i gn the r evoca t i on compl ai nt , ther eby- 5-

v io latin g th e p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st e x p o st fa c to law s. A f ter re sp o n d e n ts filed th e ir ans w er , M r . C appel l i , t hr ough couns el , fi l ed a r es pons e i n w hi ch he a l l eged that t he C ol or ado tr i al cour thad vi ol at ed the Four th A m endmentbeca us e i tl acke d juri sd ict ion to issue an arrest w arran t bas ed u p o n the p rob ati o n o fficer’s u n sw o rn re v o c a tio n c o m p la in t. I n an or derfi l ed D ece m ber22, 2005, the fe der al di s tr i ctcour thel d that M r . C appel l i ’ s ex pos tfac t o ar gum enthad notbeen e xhaus t ed i n s t at e courtand w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. T ur ni ng t o the Four th A m endmentcl ai m , the fe der al d i s t r i c tc o u r ts t a t e d t h a t“ [ a ] n e x a mi n a t i o n o f th e b r i e fs i n th e s t a t e c a s e c o n fi r ms th a t M r. C a p p e lli ra ise d a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t b e fo re th e sta te a p p e a ls a n d su p re m e c o u rts.” A p lt. A p p . at 1 0 3 ; s ee als o i d. at29, 35, 84- 85. B utthe C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls d id n o t ex p licitlya d d re ss th is c laim u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. See i d. at105. R ather , as not ed bythe fe der al di s tr i ctcourtand expl ai ned i n m or e det ai l above, t he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s r ej ect ed M r. C ap p ell i’ s claim b ase d u p o n C o lo. R ev . S tat . § 1 6 -7-4 0 3 an d M r. C ap p ell i’ s fa ilu re to d e m o n s tr a te h o w h e w a s p reju d ic e d b yth e a rr e s t w a rr a n t’ s is s u a n c e . See A pl t . A pp. at104- 05. T he fe der al di s tr i ctcour tfur thernot ed:

A l t hough t he s t at e appe al s courtdi d notaddr es s the mer i t s of M r. C a p p e lli ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im , M r. C a p p e lli a lleg e s in h is [ § 2 2 5 4 re sp o n se ] th a t th e sta te tria l co u rt a d d re ss e d th e F o u rth A m en d m en t cl aim thro u g h h is m o ti o n to q u ash . [A n d , ] [a ]s M r . C appel l i . . . poi nt s outi n [the r es pons e] , he cl ear l yhad the o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im in sta te c o u rt.- 6-

Id. a t 1 0 5 ; s ee als o i d. a t 9 1 -9 3 . A s s u c h , the fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t St one v . P o w e ll b a rr e d M r. C a p p e lli’ s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c la im . St one , 428 U . S. at482 ( “[W ] her e the St at e has pr ovi ded an opportuni tyforful l and fa i rl i t i gat i on of a Four t h A m endmentcl ai m , t he C ons t i tut i on does notr equi r e thata s t at e pr i s oner be gr ant ed fe der al habea s corpus r el i ef on the gr ound thatevi dence obt ai ned i n an u n c o n stitu tio n a l se a rc h o r se izu re w a s in tro d u c e d a t h is tria l.”); G am bl e v. O kla. , 5 8 3 F .2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ) (e x p lain in g th a t an “ [ o ]p p o rtu n ityfo r f u ll a n d fa ir c o n sid e ra tio n in c lu d e s, b u t is n o t li m ited to , the p ro c e d u ra l o p p o rtu n ityto ra ise o r o th e rw ise p re se n t a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im ,” a “ f u ll an d fa ir e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Tow ns end[ v . Sa in , 3 7 2 U .S . 2 9 3 (1 9 6 3 )] ,” a n d “ re c o g n iti o n a n d a t lea st c o lo ra b le a p p lica tio n o f th e c o rre c t F o u rth A m e n d m e n t co n stitu tio n a l sta n d a rd s” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d fo o tn o te om i t t ed) ) . I n part i cul ar , t he courtobs erved: “M r . C appel l i does notar gue thathe d id n o t h a v e a p ro c e d u ra l o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im in s t at e courtort hatt he s t at e court s ei therfai l ed orr efus ed t o appl ythe corr ectand c o n tr o llin g c o n s titu tio n a l s ta n d a rd s .” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 0 6 . S e e a ls o id . at 4-9 (§ 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e tit io n ); i d. at 88 -93 (§ 2 2 5 4 resp o n se). T her eaf t er , t he fe der al di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . C appel l i a C O A , rul i ng t hat he had not“made a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” A p lt. A p p . at 1 1 1 (q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 )). M r. C a p p e lli su b se q u e n tly so u g h t f ro m u s a C O A , es se n tiallylo d g in g th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts h e h a d lo d g e d in- 7-

th e fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ). A s p re v io u sly m ent i oned, t hi s courtgr ant ed hi s r eques tforr evi ew , i n par t , and or der ed br i efi ng a s to “ w h e th e r th e a b se n c e o f a sw o rn a rre st w a rra n t v io late d th e F o u rth A m en d m en t and affe cted the v ali d ityo f th e p roc ee d ing s to rev o k e M r. C ap p ell i’ s pr obat i on. . . . , i ncl udi ng w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed St one v. P o w e ll , 4 2 8 U .S . 4 6 5 (1 9 7 6 ), t o a n a rr e s t w a rr a n t.” O rd e r a t 4 . I I . D i s cus s i on M r . C appel l i ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourti ncorr ect l ypr ecl uded fe der al habea s r evi ew bym i s appl y i ng St one beca us e St one “addr es s ed the ava i l abi l i tyof fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief o n F o u rth A m e n d m e n t su p p re ss io n iss u e s, [ b u t d id n o t add ress] the F o u rth A m en d m en t as a w h o le. ” A p lt . R ep lyB r. at 1-2 (e m p h a sis o m itt e d ). H e a lso c o n ten d s, in c o n c lu so ryfa sh io n , tha t th e sta te c o u rts “i gnor ed the pl ai n l anguage of the Four th A m endment , and di d s o i n a manner w hi ch cons t i tut ed an unr eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of contr ol l i ng fede r al l aw , by h o ld in g th a t th e sta te c o u ld a u th o riz e a w a rra n t u p o n les s th a n th e re q u ire m e n ts found i n t he expr es s l anguage of the Four th A m endment . ” Id. a t 6 . T h is c o n te n tio n , h o w e v e r, w a s n o t r a is e d in th e fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt . See A pl t . A pp. a t 4 -9 (§ 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n ); i d. a t 8 8 -9 3 (§ 2 2 5 4 re sp o n se ); i d. at106 ( obs ervi ng t hat M r. C a p p e lli d id n o t, i n th e fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt, arg u e “ th a t th e sta te c o u rts ei t herfai l ed orr efus ed t o appl yt he corr ectand contr ol l i ng cons t i tut i onal sta n d a rd s” ). F u rth e r, M r. C a p p e lli h a s fa iled “ to a rticu late a re a so n fo r u s toC ol o. R ev. St at . § 16- 11- 205( 6) ( 2000) , i n effectatt he t i m e the w arr antfor 1 M r . C appel l i ’ s arr es tw as i s s ued, pr ovi ded: A w arr antfort he arr es tof anypr obat i onerforvi ol at i on of the condi t i ons of pr obat i on m aybe i s s ued byanyj udge of a courtof r ecor d upon t he r eportof a pr obat i on offi cerorupon t he ver i fi ed compl ai ntof anyper s on, es t abl i s hi ng t o the s at i s fac t i on of the j udge (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 8- departfr om t he gene r al rul e that ” thi s cour tw i l l notcons i deran i s s ue thatw as n o t r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Walkerv. Mather ( In re Walker

) , 959 F. 2d 894, 896 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , w e dec l i ne to c o n s id e r t h is a rg u m e n t. See i d. R e sp o n d e n ts c o u n ter th a t St one “ is b ro a d e n o u g h to e x c lu d e a ll F o u rth A m endmentcl ai m s . ” A pl ee. B r . at8 ( r el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 4 5 7 U . S . 5 3 7 , 5 6 3 n . 2 0 (19 8 2 ) (“A fter S to n e v . P o w e ll. . . , the onl ycas es r ai s i ng Four t h A m endmentchal l enges on col l at er al att ack a r e thos e fe der al habea s corpus c a se s in w h ich th e S tate h a s fa iled to p ro v id e a sta te p riso n e r w ith a n o p p o rtu n ity fo rf u l l a n d fa i rl i t i g a t i o n o f h i s c l a i m, a n a l o g o u s fe d e r a l c a s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2255, and col l at er al chal l enges bys t at e pr i s oner s t o thei rs t at e convi ct i ons underpos t convi ct i on r el i ef s t atut es thatcont i nue t o r ecogni ze Fourth A m endment cl ai m s . ”) ) . R es pondent s al s o as s er tthateven though “the C ol or ado pr obat i on r evoca t i on s t atut es r efe rt o a ‘ w arr ant , ’ thi s i s s i m pl ynotthe s ame t ype of w arr ant re fe rre d to in th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.” A p lee . B r. at 1 1 (c iti n g C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 1 6 -11 -20 5 (6)). 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thata condi t i on of pr obat i on has been v io late d a n d th a t th e a rre st o f th e p ro b a tio n e r is re a so n a b ly nece s s ary . T he w arr antm aybe exe cut ed byanypr obat i on offi ceror b ya p e a c e o ffice r a u th o riz e d to e x e c u te w a rra n ts in th e c o u n tyin w hi ch the pr obat i oneri s found.

- 9- W e re v iew d e n o v o w h ethe r a p eti ti o n er is pre clud ed u n d er S to n e v . P o w e ll f ro m litig a tin g a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c la im in a § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g . Mi r anda v. C ooper , 9 6 7 F .2 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). H e re , the re c o rd re flec ts t hatM r . C appel l i r ai s ed hi s Four th A m endmentcl ai m i n the s t at e court s . H e w as affor ded tw o hear i ngs i n the C ol or ado tr i al cour ton hi s m ot i on t o quas h the p ro b a tio n o ffice r’s re v o c a tio n c o m p lain t. T h e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t p ro b a b le caus e exi s t ed fort he arr es tw arr ant . T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed the trial c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro b a b le c a u se . A n d , M r. C a p p e lli w a iv e d h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e sta te c o u rts “ ig n o re d th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e F o u rth A m endment . ” A pl t . R epl yB r . at6. E ven i f he ha d notw ai ved thi s ar gum ent , he p o i n t s t o n o a u t h o r i t yma n d a t i n g r e v e r s a l b u ti g n o r e d b yth e s t a t e c o u r t , a n d we h a v e fo u n d n o n e . C

f. G a m b le , 5 8 3 F . 2 d at 11 6 3 (disap p rov ing stat e c o u rt ’s a p p l i c a t i o n o f

p r i n c i p l e s “ fl a t l yc o n d e mn e d b yth e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt” ). A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t M r. C a p p e lli is n o te n t i t l e d t o h a b e a s c o rp u s r e l i e f o n h i s F o u r th Ame n d me n tc l a i m.- 10- I I I . C oncl usi on T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

W ade Brorby Seni orC i r cui tJ udge