Stone v. Powell/Wolff v. Rice

Facts

Powell (D) became involved in an altercation over the theft of a bottle of wine. D shot and killed the store owner’s wife. Ten hours later, D was arrested for a vagrancy violation, and a search incident to that arrest discovered a .38-caliber revolver with six expended cartridges in the cylinder. P was extradited to California and convicted of murder. During trial, he argued against the admission of the murder weapon because the vagrancy statute under which he was arrested was vague and unconstitutional. D was convicted and appealed, but it was deemed harmless error because several eyewitnesses testified that they saw D commit the murder. The Supreme Court of California denied Powell's petition for habeas corpus relief. D then filed an amended petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court concluded that the arresting officer had probable cause, and held that, even if the vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutional, the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule does not require that it be applied to bar admission of the fruits of a search incident to an otherwise valid arrest. In the alternative, it was harmless error. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court concluded that the vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, that D's arrest was therefore illegal, and that, although exclusion of the evidence would serve no deterrent purpose with regard to police officers who were enforcing statutes in good faith, exclusion would serve the public interest by deterring legislators from enacting unconstitutional statutes. 

Police received a telephone call that a woman had been heard screaming. As one of the officers sent to that address examined a suitcase lying in the doorway, it exploded, killing him instantly. A warrant for Peak, a 15-year-old member of the National Committee to Combat Fascism (NCCF), was issued for his arrest. Rice (D) was also a suspect as police believed that D was planning to kill Peak to keep him silent. Police went to D's home at 10:30 and found lights and a television on, but there was no response to their repeated knocking. While some officers remained to watch the premises, a warrant was obtained to search for explosives and illegal weapons. Police discovered, in plain view, dynamite, blasting caps and other materials used in the construction of explosive devices. Peal was arrested, and, D voluntarily surrendered. The clothes Rice was wearing at that time were subjected to chemical analysis, disclosing dynamite particles. D was tried for first-degree murder. Peak testified against D, and the State introduced items seized during the search, as well as the results of the chemical analysis of D's clothing. The court denied Rice's motion to suppress this evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the conviction, holding that the search of D's home had been pursuant to a valid search warrant. D filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the evidence was discovered as the result of an illegal search of his home. The District Court concluded that the search warrant was invalid, as the supporting affidavit was defective. The court reasoned that the arrest warrant did not justify the entry, as the police lacked probable cause to believe Peak was in the house, and further concluded that the circumstances were not sufficiently exigent to justify an immediate warrantless search. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 

Ds' petitions raised questions concerning the scope of federal habeas corpus and the role of the exclusionary rule upon collateral review of cases involving Fourth Amendment claims.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.