Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sampson v. Middleton, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views4 pages
    Rodney Sampson appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that evidence obtained during an unconstitutional search and seizure was used against him at trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Sampson's application for a certificate of appealability. The court found that Sampson had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, where the court properly applied controlling case law in concluding the search was constitutional. As Sampson failed to demonstrate his constitutional rights were denied, his petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6195

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Sampson appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that evidence obtained during an unconstitutional search and seizure was used against him at trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Sampson's application for a certificate of appealability. The court found that Sampson had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, where the court properly applied controlling case law in concluding the search was constitutional. As Sampson failed to demonstrate his constitutional rights were denied, his petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    38 views4 pages

    Sampson v. Middleton, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Sampson appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that evidence obtained during an unconstitutional search and seizure was used against him at trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Sampson's application for a certificate of appealability. The court found that Sampson had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, where the court properly applied controlling case law in concluding the search was constitutional. As Sampson failed to demonstrate his constitutional rights were denied, his petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    NOV 23 1999

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    RODNEY SAMPSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,

    v.

    JOHN MIDDLETON,

    No. 99-6195
    (D.C. No. CV-98-945-T)
    (Western District of Oklahoma)

    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

    Appellant Rodney Sampson appeals the district courts denial of his


    petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Because
    Sampson has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right, we deny his application for a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C.
    2253(c).

    The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant


    to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is
    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
    and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
    judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
    conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    Following a bench trial in the District Court of Oklahoma County,


    Sampson was convicted of trafficking in cocaine base and possession of
    marijuana. On direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,
    Sampson raised various claims of error, including failure to suppress evidence
    obtained during an unconstitutional search and seizure. Police seized the
    evidence at issue from Sampson in the Oklahoma City bus terminal. After
    entering the terminal, Sampson had placed his luggage at his feet and his jacket
    on the chair next to him. A police officer made a sweep of the station with a
    trained dog. The dog indicated the presence of narcotics after sniffing Sampsons
    luggage and jacket. The police then conducted a consensual search of the luggage
    and a nonconsensual search of his person. The Court of Criminal Appeals held
    that the search was constitutional. Sampson then filed the present petition in the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district
    court denied habeas relief, finding that Sampson was afforded a full and fair
    opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court.
    [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. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494

    -2-

    (1976); see also Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999).
    Sampson does not contend that the proceedings in state court were deficient.
    Rather he contends that the Stone bar does not apply because the Oklahoma courts
    wilfully refuse[d] to apply the correct and controlling constitutional standards.
    Gamble v. Oklahoma, 583 F.2d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 1978). In particular, he
    cites United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983), which held that exposure
    of luggage located in a public place to a trained canine is not a search within the
    meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See also United States v. Garcia, 42 F.3d
    604, 606 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that a canine sniff of luggage in a train
    baggage car does not constitute a search). Contrary to Sampsons assertions,
    Place does not require reasonable suspicion prior to a dog sniff in this context.
    See United States v. Morales-Zamora, 914 F.2d 200, 204-05 (10th Cir. 1990).
    The Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals did not wilfully refuse to apply
    Place; it cited the case in its summary opinion. See Sampson v. Oklahoma, No. F96-1185, slip op. at 2 n.1 (Okla. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 1997). Furthermore,
    nothing in the record indicates that the court applied Place improperly or in a
    manner contrary to controlling constitutional standards in reaching its conclusion.
    Therefore, Sampson has failed to demonstrate that he was denied a full and fair
    opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and he has
    failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    -3-

    Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the application


    for a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and this matter is DISMISSED.
    The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge

    -4-

    You might also like