Brock v. U.S.

50 Citing cases

  1. Johnston v. United States

    No. 21 C 02720 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 22, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    While Stone directly applies to state prisoners, the Seventh Circuit has determined that the principles of Stone “apply equally” to federal § 2255 motions. Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Owens v. United States, 387 F.3d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 2004)). Petitioner Johnston has already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim that there was not probable cause for his arrest.

  2. Conwell v. Warden

    CAUSE NO.: 3:20-CV-660-MGG (N.D. Ind. Apr. 6, 2021)

    That is because the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is not a "personal constitutional right" of the accused; rather, "it is a judicially created means of effectuating the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment." Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 499 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The exclusionary rule was intended to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment by "removing the incentive to disregard it," but it has attendant costs, since it "deflects the truth-finding process and often frees the guilty."

  3. Calligan v. Warden

    3:21-CV-68-MGG (N.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2021)

    This is because the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is not a 1 “personal constitutional right” of the accused; rather, “it is a judicially created means of effectuating the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment.” Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 499 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore, federal habeas courts are barred from reviewing free-standing Fourth Amendment claims that were fully and fairly litigated in state court.

  4. United States v. Paulette

    Case No. 14-CR-30152-1-NJR (S.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    As to the first inquiry, "[t]he heart of this question is whether, taking away any illegally obtained information, the affidavit still demonstrated probable cause." Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309, 1317 (7th Cir. 1993)). The determination of probable cause "involves 'a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'"

  5. Christie v. United States

    Civil Action No. 12-988 (JLL) (D.N.J. May. 20, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Numerous circuit and district courts, including several district courts in this circuit, have therefore held that Stone's holding does apply to § 2255 motions, and that a petitioner may not relitigate Fourth Amendment claims where he has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues in the federal trial court. See Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761-62 (6th Cir. 2013); Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ishmael, 343 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 1980); Huggins v. United States, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, ---, 2014 WL 4828979, at *21 (D. Del. 2014); United States v. Brown, No. 04-4121, 2005 WL 1532538, at *5, *5 n. 14 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2005); see also United States v. Thomas, 713 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Cook with approval, albeit on a different issue). This Court concludes, as did numerous other federal courts, that the holding of Stone does apply to motions brought pursuant to § 2255, and as a result, Petitioner may not raise Fourth Amendment claims so long as he was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment issues in the trial court.

  6. Judkins v. United States

    Case No. 12-C-0759 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 18, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Further, under the rule of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), a federal prisoner may not obtain collateral relief on a Fourth Amendment claim if he was able present the argument directly. Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Owens v. United States, 387 F.3d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 2004)). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims need not be raised on direct appeal.

  7. Black v. United States

    Case No. 12 C 4306 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In the alternative, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), bars Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim. See Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 2009) ("the principles of Stone apply equally to § 2255 motions"). Specifically, Stone bars a Section 2255 petitioner from bringing Fourth Amendment claims on collateral review unless the petitioner was denied a full and fair opportunity to contest his claims in the underlying criminal proceeding.

  8. Brock v. United States

    558 U.S. 1058 (2009)

    David C. BROCK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 573 F.3d 497. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

  9. Ray v. United States

    721 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2013)   Cited 442 times
    Holding that Fourth Amendment violations are not reviewable in a § 2255 motion absent a showing that the prisoner was denied an opportunity for full and fair litigation of these claims at trial and on direct appeal

    Other courts have found that it does. See Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.2009) (“This Court has determined that the principles of Stone apply equally to § 2255 motions.”); United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir.1993) (“Today, we join the Ninth Circuit and hold that Fourth Amendment violations are not reviewable in a 2255 motion when the federal prisoner has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim at trial and present issues on direct appeal.”).

  10. United States v. Lee Vang Lor

    706 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding a claim was waived when not mentioned in the § 2255 motion and raised “only in reply brief before the district court”

    We have never considered whether evidence discovered after a suppression hearing can circumvent the Stone bar. The Seventh Circuit, however, considered a similar situation in Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir.2009). There, the defendant brought a § 2255 motion after he located a witness who was previously unavailable to testify at the defendant's suppression hearing.