4th amendment violation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Darryl J. Sutton v. Randy Pfister

Case No.: 15-2888

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and MANION and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: 4^th amendment violation

Court erred in allowing writ of habeas corpus on 4^th amendment violation allegation as DNA evidence would inevitably be produced.

“Thus, even if Sutton falls within the Powell exception, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Section 2254(a) permits a federal court to grant the writ only when the petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (legal errors that do not result in the petitioner’s “custody” violating the Constitution or federal law, such as errors of state law, cannot be remedied through the writ); Hampton v. Wyant, 296 F.3d 560, 562 (7th Cir. 2002) (petitioner imprisoned based on “unlawfully seized evidence is not ‘in custody in violation the Constitution’” because the “seizure may have violated the Constitution but the custody does not” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). Here, even if the state violated the Fourth Amendment in the Rac case, Sutton’s custody in the Lally case is not in violation of the Constitution, and he is not entitled to the issuance of the writ.”

Grant of petition reversed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.