Opinion ID: 336561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Initial Arrest

Text: 6 The question of the legality vel non of petitioner's initial arrest has become less important due to a recent Supreme Court decision. Stone v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d ----, 44 U.S.L.W. 5313 (1976). We, therefore, find it unnecessary to decide whether the district court violated the mandate of this Court's prior opinion and/or the law of the case when it allowed the State to justify the arrest as one for murder and robbery. Even if evidence admitted at Caver's trial was the product of an illegal arrest, Caver can no longer collaterally attack his conviction on the basis of such a fourth amendment violation. Under Stone v. Powell, supra, a state prisoner can raise such a fourth amendment claim in a federal habeas proceeding only upon a showing that the state failed to provide him with an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim. Difficult as it may be for a state prisoner to meet such a burden, the petitioner should be given a chance to be heard upon the legal standard announced in Stone v. Powell. 2 For that reason, dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in the light of Stone v. Powell, supra. 7 VACATED AND REMANDED.