Good v. Berghuis, No. 12-1428 (6th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseGood, a Michigan inmate, claims he was convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The state trial court denied his motion to suppress without holding an evidentiary hearing, and a state appellate court denied his appeal. Good sought, and was denied, a federal writ of habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the prohibition on federal habeas review of exclusionary rule claims that applies to prisoners who received “the opportunity for full and fair consideration” of their claims in state court. Because the Michigan Court of Appeals has rejected Good’s due process argument on the merits, Good may prevail only by showing that the decision was contrary to or unreasonably applied U.S> Supreme Court precedents, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). Good identified no Supreme Court holding establishing that the Due Process Clause ever requires an evidentiary hearing on a Fourth Amendment suppression motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.