428 U.S. 465 (1976)
In February 1968, Lloyd Powell was arrested in Henderson, Nevada, for violating a local vagrancy ordinance.1
During a search incident to the arrest, officers discovered a .38-caliber revolver.2
Powell was extradited to California and convicted of second-degree murder in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.3
The trial court rejected Powell's contention that testimony by the Henderson police officer as to the search and the discovery of the revolver should have been excluded because the vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutional.4
In October 1969, the conviction was affirmed by a California District Court of Appeal.5
The Supreme Court of California denied Powell's petition for habeas corpus relief.6
In August 1971 Powell filed an amended petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.7
The district court denied relief.8
In December 1974, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.9
Separately, on August 17, 1970, Omaha police received a telephone call that a woman had been heard screaming at 2867 Ohio Street.10
As one of the officers sent to that address examined a suitcase lying in the doorway, it exploded, killing him instantly.11
By August 22 the investigation of the murder centered on Duane Peak, a 15-year-old member of the National Committee to Combat Fascism, and that afternoon a warrant was issued for Peak's arrest.12
The investigation also focused on other known members of the NCCF, including Rice.13
While some officers remained to watch the premises, a warrant was obtained to search for explosives and illegal weapons believed to be in Rice's possession.14
Peak was not in the house, but upon entering the police discovered, in plain view, dynamite, blasting caps, and other materials useful in the construction of explosive devices.15
Rice was tried for first-degree murder in the District Court of Douglas County.16
As corroborative evidence the State introduced items seized during the search, as well as the results of the chemical analysis of Rice's clothing.17
The court denied Rice's motion to suppress this evidence.18
On appeal the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the conviction, holding that the search of Rice's home had been pursuant to a valid search warrant.19
In September 1972 Rice filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for Nebraska.20
The District Court concluded that the search warrant was invalid, as the supporting affidavit was defective under Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964).21
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court.22
Petitioners Stone and Wolff, the wardens of the respective state prisons where Powell and Rice are incarcerated, petitioned for review of these decisions.23
We granted their petitions for certiorari.24
Whether a federal court must apply the exclusionary rule on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner who has been afforded an opportunity for the full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim?25
The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect rather than a personal constitutional right.26 Where 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.27
No. The established facts show that Powell received full state-court review when the California District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction after considering the search claim and the Supreme Court of California denied habeas relief.28 Rice received full state-court review when the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed his conviction after upholding the search warrant.29 The rule therefore bars federal habeas relief because the incremental deterrent effect in collateral proceedings is minimal compared to the substantial societal costs of excluding reliable evidence and releasing guilty defendants.30 The state proceedings already applied the exclusionary rule at trial and on direct appeal.31
Federal habeas relief is unavailable on Fourth Amendment grounds when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.32
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.33 It is not merely a judicially created remedy but a constitutional command.34 The Court's decision today undermines the deterrent effect of the rule and permits the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in state criminal trials.35
Federal habeas corpus exists to ensure that state courts comply with the Constitution.36 The Court minimizes the costs of the exclusionary rule and exaggerates the costs of applying it in habeas proceedings.37 The rule serves the important function of protecting the integrity of the judicial process.38
Justice White dissented on the ground that the habeas corpus statute does not permit distinguishing Fourth Amendment claims from other constitutional claims.39 If two codefendants raise identical search-and-seizure issues and one obtains relief on direct review while the other is barred from habeas, the statute produces an irrational disparity that Congress did not intend.40 Under the present habeas corpus statute, neither Rice's nor Powell's application for habeas corpus should be dismissed on the grounds now stated by the Court.41
The exclusionary rule should apply in federal habeas corpus proceedings to ensure that state courts respect the Fourth Amendment rights of defendants.42
Whether the decision in Kaufman v. United States should be overruled to the extent it holds that a state prisoner may invoke federal habeas corpus to obtain relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial?43
Kaufman v. United States is overruled to the extent that it holds that a state prisoner may invoke federal habeas corpus to obtain relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.44 The costs of applying the exclusionary rule on collateral review outweigh its minimal additional deterrent contribution once the state has already provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that both Powell and Rice litigated their Fourth Amendment claims through trial, direct appeal, and state habeas before seeking federal relief.45 The rationale of Kaufman that search-and-seizure claims must be treated identically to other constitutional claims on collateral review no longer holds when the exclusionary rule's deterrent purpose is already served by state proceedings.46 The rule's application on habeas imposes substantial costs by diverting attention from guilt or innocence.47
Kaufman v. United States is overruled insofar as it permitted federal habeas relief on Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule claims after a full and fair state opportunity to litigate.48