834 F.3d 816
7th Cir.2016Background
- Sutton was lawfully convicted in a 1991 case (Rac); a Cook County judge signed an order in May 1991 directing Sutton to submit a blood sample under a statutory provision, but the order lacked probable cause according to the parties’ assumption and the sample was taken unlawfully.
- The blood sample taken in the Rac matter was sent to labs and later matched by the FBI to evidence in an unrelated 1990 sexual-assault/home-invasion (Lally) case, producing DNA that tied Sutton to the Lally offense.
- Sutton moved to suppress the DNA in the Lally prosecution on Fourth Amendment grounds; state courts rejected suppression (the appellate court erroneously presumed no transcript was supplied, later corrected).
- Sutton sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing the DNA was the product of an unconstitutional blood draw; the district court granted the writ, relying on the view that Sutton lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim in state court.
- The State argued on remand (and on appeal) that under the inevitable-discovery doctrine the DNA would have been obtained lawfully because Illinois law required convicted sex-offenders to submit blood samples post-conviction, so exclusion was not warranted.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court: even assuming the Rac blood draw was unconstitutional and that federal review of the Fourth Amendment claim was permitted, the DNA would inevitably have been obtained under state law, so Sutton was not in custody in violation of the Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal habeas relief is available for Sutton’s Fourth Amendment claim despite Stone v. Powell | Sutton: state courts did not afford full and fair review (transcript issues and state-court mistakes), so federal habeas review is proper | State: Powell generally bars habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims unless full and fair review was denied; here state courts considered claim | Court assumed arguendo Powell issue but did not decide it; held relief unnecessary because of inevitable discovery outcome |
| Whether the DNA evidence violated the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule | Sutton: DNA derived from unlawfully obtained blood should be excluded in Lally trial | State: inevitable-discovery doctrine applies because Illinois law required post-conviction blood samples from convicted sex offenders | Held: inevitable discovery applies — DNA would have been obtained lawfully under state statute, so no exclusionary relief |
| Whether the state met its burden to show inevitable discovery by a preponderance | Sutton: State can’t show by preponderance that lawful procedures would have led to the sample independent of the unlawful order | State: statutory requirement and presumptions of regularity establish that a lawful sample would have been collected after conviction | Held: State met its burden — mandatory statutory scheme and presumption of regularity mean the sample would have been obtained lawfully |
| Whether AEDPA bars relief because Sutton’s custody is not unconstitutional absent exclusionary remedy | Sutton: custody resulted from conviction that relied on unlawfully obtained evidence | State: even if initial seizure unlawful, custody isn’t unconstitutional if evidence would inevitably have been obtained | Held: Under § 2254 and precedents, Sutton’s custody did not violate the Constitution because the evidence inevitably would have been discovered; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (establishes limits on habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (articulates the inevitable-discovery doctrine)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (relation between Fourth Amendment claims and ineffective-assistance claims)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (taking blood is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (§ 2254 relief only for custody in violation of the Constitution)