Barcus v. NH State Prison, Warden
1:17-cv-00167
D.N.H.Aug 22, 2017Background
- Petitioner Charles Barcus was convicted after a bench trial in New Hampshire Superior Court for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute (Apr. 12, 2016).
- Evidence at trial resulted from a warrantless search of Barcus’s hotel room; Barcus moved to suppress those items in the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court denied the suppression motion; Barcus appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (NHSC).
- The NHSC affirmed the denial of suppression and Barcus’s conviction (Feb. 15, 2017).
- Barcus filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting: (1) a Fourth Amendment violation (unreasonable, warrantless search) and (2) a violation of the New Hampshire Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment claim can be litigated in federal habeas | Barcus: search of hotel room was an unreasonable, warrantless search violating Fourth Amendment | Warden: Barcus already litigated the suppression motion in state court; Stone bar applies | Court: Fourth Amendment claim not cognizable in federal habeas because Barcus had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court (Stone v. Powell) |
| Whether a state-constitutional search claim is reviewable on federal habeas | Barcus: New Hampshire constitutional violation warrants relief | Warden: Federal habeas is limited to federal law violations only | Court: State-constitutional claim not cognizable on federal habeas (federal statute limits relief to federal constitutional or statutory violations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (bar to federal habeas review where petitioner had full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claim in state court)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (discussing scope of habeas and civil remedies; cited for habeas principles)
- Sanna v. DiPaolo, 265 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (Fourth Amendment claims generally not cognizable on federal habeas absent lack of realistic opportunity to litigate in state court)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (federal habeas relief is limited to violations of federal law or the U.S. Constitution)
- Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2016) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report waives right to appeal)