F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
March 30, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DAVID ANDERSON, SR.,
Petitioner-A ppellant, No. 06-3263
v. District of Kansas
STATE OF KAN SAS, PHILL KLINE, (D.C. No. 04-3275-CM )
K ansas Attorney G eneral and SAM
CLIN E, W arden, Ellsworth
Correctional Facility,
Respondents-Appellees.
OR DER DENY ING CERTIFICATE O F APPEALABILITY *
Before M U RPH Y, SE YM OU R, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
David Anderson, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate
of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district court’s
order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). Because w e conclude that M r. Anderson has failed to make “a
substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right,” we deny his request
for a COA, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Background
On the evening of M ay 3, 2000, M r. Anderson’s truck collided with a
motorcycle driven by Gary W agner. M r. Anderson and M r. W agner w ere
transported to the hospital where M r. W agner subsequently died. An eye witness
reported to police that M r. Anderson was driving without his lights on and that he
had crossed the center line several times before the collision. At the hospital, an
officer read M r. Anderson an implied consent form and asked for his permission
to perform a blood test. M r. Anderson responded, “I don’t care,” and the police
instructed a nurse to take a blood sample. Approximately an hour later, police
arrested M r. Anderson and he was eventually charged with violating a number of
Kansas statutes, including involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence,
reckless driving, failure to use headlights, and driving on the left side of the road.
At trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce the results of the blood
alcohol test, which showed M r. Anderson had a blood alcohol content of 0.21 at
the time of testing. M r. Anderson argued that the sample should be excluded
because it was taken without consent and prior to his arrest. The court agreed and
held that the evidence should be excluded. The government appealed the district
court’s ruling and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court held
that the blood test was admissible under Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757
(1966), because the officer had probable cause to believe M r. Anderson was
driving under the influence of alcohol, the “evanescent nature of the [blood
-2-
alcohol] evidence” created exigent circumstances allowing seizure without a
warrant, and the test was performed in a reasonable manner. App. 25–26. The
Kansas Supreme Court denied M r. A nderson’s request for review.
After remand to the state district court, a jury found M r. Anderson guilty on
all counts. M r. Anderson appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction. The Kansas Supreme Court denied M r. Anderson’s petition for
review. Thereafter, M r. Anderson filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal
district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his involuntary manslaughter
conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds.
The district court did not reach the merits of M r. Anderson’s Fourth
Amendment claim; rather, it dismissed the petition because M r. Anderson had
already received an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claim in state
court under the Supreme Court’s decision in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482
(1976). The district court refused to grant a COA. This petition followed.
Discussion
An individual in state custody may appeal the denial of a motion for relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). In order to make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that
“reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been
-3-
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
M r. Anderson claims, without citation to authority, that the district court
should have considered the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim despite the fact
that he received multiple hearings on the matter before at least two different state
courts. On the merits, M r. Anderson argues that the state court erred in its
interpretation of Schmerber. In Schmerber, the Supreme Court held that taking a
blood sample w ithout a w arrant after an arrest did not violate the Fourth
Amendment because the delay required in procuring a warrant risked destruction
of evidence. 384 U.S. at 770. M r. Anderson contends that the Schmerber
exception to the warrant requirement only applies to blood samples taken after an
arrest has occurred, and the taking of his blood sample— which occurred prior to
his arrest— thus constitutes an unlawful seizure.
In Stone v. Powell, the Supreme Court held that “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.” 428 U.S. at 494. The opportunity for full and fair litigation “includes, but
is not limited to, the procedural opportunity to raise or otherwise present a Fourth
Amendment claim,” a “full and fair evidentiary hearing contemplated by
-4-
Townsend [v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963)],” and state court “recognition and at
least colorable application of the correct Fourth Amendment constitutional
standards.” G am ble v. O klahom a, 583 F.2d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 1978).
W hether M r. Anderson had an opportunity for a full and fair litigation of his
Fourth A mendment claim in state court is a question this Court reviews de novo.
Cannon v. Gibson, 259 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 2001).
The state appellate court correctly recognized that Schmerber enunciated
the governing legal standard for M r. Anderson’s Fourth Amendment claim and
applied it to the facts of M r Anderson’s case in at least a colorable manner. The
state appellate court was convinced that the police were justified in taking M r.
Anderson’s blood sample prior to arrest based on logic similar to that employed
in Schmerber: the officers had probable cause to believe that M r. Anderson was
under the influence of alcohol and, in light of the evanescent nature of blood
alcohol evidence, exigent circumstances existed that made an immediate sampling
necessary. No reasonable jurist could find that the state court failed to colorably
apply the correct legal standard, as enumerated in Schmerber. See Cannon v.
Gibson, 259 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissing a petition for habeas
corpus based on a Fourth Amendment claim because the challenge w as “more
akin to an attack on the merits of the [prior state court] decision rather than a
charge that [it] willfully misapplied constitutional law”).
-5-
Conclusion
Accordingly, we D EN Y M r. Anderson’s request for a COA and DISM ISS
this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-6-