SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

“A federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner
if a state court’s adjudication of his constitutional claim
was ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.’” (Middleton v.
McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 436 [158 L.Ed.2 nd 701];
citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).)
Title 42 United States Code § 1983: Provides for federal
civil liability for “Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State . . .” subjects, or causes to be subjected any person
within the United States to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the United States
Constitution and laws.
Decisions From Other States: California courts are not bound by
case decisions from other states (J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v.
M.K. (1991) 52 Cal.3 rd 1009, 1027.), although we may consider
them.
Opinions of the California Attorney General: A published opinion
of the California Attorney General is apparently on about equal
footing with federal appellate court decisions, it having been held
that these opinions are “entitled to great weight in the absence of
controlling state statutes and court decisions” to the contrary.
(Phyle v. Duffy (1948) 334 U.S. 431, 441 [92 L.Ed. 1494, 1500].)
Writ of Habeas Corpus: When a defendant claims to be in actual
or constructive custody in violation of the United States
Constitution (e.g., as the result of a Fourth Amendment
violation), a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in state (P.C. §§ 1473 et
seq.) or federal (28 U.S.C. § 2254) court (see Wright v. West
(1992) 505 U.S. 277 [120 L.Ed.2 nd 225].) is the vehicle by which
he or she may test the issue.
When a habeas corpus remedy is sought in federal court,
the United States Supreme Court has noted that: “(W)here
the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair
litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner
may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the
ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search
or seizure was introduced at his trial.” (fns. omitted; Stone
v. Powell (1976) 428 U.S. 465, 494 [49 L.Ed.2 nd 1067,
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
11