## Facts

- Two state prisoners, Lloyd Powell (California) and David Rice (Nebraska), were convicted of murder in separate state prosecutions.
- Powell’s conviction included evidence of a revolver found in his jacket during an arrest conducted under a Nevada vagrancy ordinance; he argued the arrest and resulting seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and sought suppression in state court.
- State courts rejected Powell’s suppression claim (or treated any error as harmless), and state postconviction relief was denied; federal habeas proceedings ultimately resulted in relief in the court of appeals based on the asserted Fourth Amendment violation.
- Rice challenged evidence obtained under a search warrant as unsupported by probable cause; the state trial court denied suppression and the conviction was affirmed on direct review.
- In Rice’s federal habeas proceedings, lower federal courts found the warrant invalid and granted relief.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the cases to address whether federal habeas courts should consider Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims after state courts have provided procedures to litigate them.

## Issues

1. Whether a state prisoner may obtain federal habeas corpus relief based on the admission at trial of evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment when the State provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim.
2. Whether the exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose justifies re-litigation of Fourth Amendment suppression issues on collateral federal review.

## Decision

- The Court held that, where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, federal habeas relief may not be granted on the ground that unlawfully seized evidence was introduced at trial.
- The Court characterized the exclusionary rule as a judicially created remedy aimed at deterrence, not a personal constitutional right.
- The Court reasoned that applying the exclusionary rule on federal habeas provides minimal additional deterrence beyond trial and direct review, while imposing substantial costs on finality and truth-finding.
- The Court rejected the rationale that habeas-based exclusion is needed to deter legislatures from enacting unconstitutional statutes.
- Because Powell and Rice had opportunities in state proceedings to litigate their suppression claims, the lower federal courts should not have granted habeas relief on Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule grounds.
- The judgments granting habeas relief were reversed.

## Legal Principles

- A Fourth Amendment claim seeking application of the exclusionary rule is generally not cognizable on federal habeas when the State provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claim.
- The exclusionary rule is a deterrent, judicially fashioned remedy whose application depends on weighing deterrent value against societal costs, including impairment of truth-finding and finality.
- Federal habeas remains available for other constitutional violations, but it does not function as a second forum for re-litigating fully aired Fourth Amendment suppression issues.

## Conclusion

Stone v. Powell bars federal habeas relief for Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims when state procedures afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate suppression, limiting collateral review in favor of finality and reserving habeas for other constitutional errors.


Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976)