Opinion ID: 573333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Confession

Text: 22 Petitioner contends that he was arrested without probable cause, and since the police had no arrest warrant, his confession was illegally obtained. Consequently, the failure to suppress his confession violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court properly refused to address the merits of this claim on the basis that Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976), precludes review of a Fourth Amendment claim in a habeas petition where the petitioner has already had an opportunity for a fair and full litigation of that claim in state court. Petitioner argues that he has not had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of this claim, but his contention appears to be based on the fact that petitioner simply disagrees with the state courts' determination of the merits of his claim. 23 The district court correctly stated the two-prong approach in determining whether petitioner has had an opportunity for a full and fair hearing. First, the court must determine whether the State has a procedural mechanism which presents an opportunity to raise a Fourth Amendment claim. Second, the court must determine whether presentation of that claim was frustrated by a failure of that procedural mechanism. Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 948 (1982); see also Jennings v. Rees, 800 F.2d 72, 76-77 (6th Cir.1986). 24 On January 29 and 30, 1985, petitioner received a preliminary examination in the Detroit Recorder's Court during which the court heard testimony and considered in depth whether probable cause existed to arrest petitioner, and, consequently, whether petitioner's confession obtained after his arrest should be suppressed. Moreover, before trial, petitioner's trial attorney filed a motion to suppress petitioner's confession and a motion to quash the confession. On April 26, 1985, the court heard arguments on the motion to quash first and subsequently denied the motion. The record indicates that the motions hearing terminated without arguments or an oral ruling on the motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the Michigan Court of Appeals did address at length the legality of the arrest and the alleged tainted nature of the confession, even though the State argued that petitioner abandoned the issue by not addressing it at the motions hearing. Clearly the state provided a procedural mechanism to examine the merits of petitioner's claim, and, in fact, the State considered petitioner's claim fully at least twice. Furthermore, as the district court noted, any failure to address further petitioner's claim is not due to a frustration of the state's procedural mechanism. Where counsel declines to pursue a Fourth Amendment claim, it is no reflection on the state's procedural mechanism. See Jennings, 800 F.2d at 77. 25