Boyd v. Mintz, 631 F.2d 247, 250 (3d Cir.1980); Petillo v. New Jersey, 562 F.2d 903, 906-07 (3d Cir.1977). Conversely, a petitioner has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim and, therefore, avoids the Stone bar, if the state system contains a structural defect that prevented the state from fully and fairly hearing his Fourth Amendment claims. Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 82 (3d Cir.2002). Here, although petitioner’s counsel did not file a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the hotel room or his car, the fact that Delaware provides a mechanism for such suppression via Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 41 satisfies the “full and fair opportunity to litigate” requirement for federal habeas purposes. See, e.g., Marshall, 307 F.3d at 82 (<HOLDING>); Gilmore v. Marks, 799 F.2d 51, 56 (3d
holding that an erroneous or summary resolution by a state court of a fourth amendment claim does not overcome the stone  bar holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states