THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HABEAS CORPUS AS IT APPLIES TO STATE PRISONERS IS HIGHLIGHTED TO SHOW AN EXPANSION FROM ITS LIMITED USE TO CHALLENGE THE SENTENCING COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ITS USE IN CHALLENGING ANY CUSTODY THAT IS DEEMED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS, OR TREATIES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IN-CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS ARE EXAMINED, AS IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL STATE REMEDIES BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE HABEAS CORPUS APPLIES. THE EFFECT OF PROCEDURAL WAIVERS ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IS ALSO CONSIDERED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT WHEREAS THE FAY DECISION INDICATED THAT PROCEDURAL WAIVERS WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BAR SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, DECISIONS THAT FOLLOWED INDICATE THAT A PROCEDURAL WAIVER BARS HABEAS RELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS: (1) WHERE THE WAIVER WAS DELIBERATELY MADE; (2) WHERE THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF ACTUAL PREJUDICE; (3) WHERE THE WAIVER WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF REASONABLE ADVICE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL; AND (4) WHERE THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF COMPULSION BY THE STATE. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE RECENT STONE DECISION, IT WAS RULED 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 TRIAL . IT IS ARGUED THAT THE BURGER COURT HAS EMBARKED ON A COURSE WHICH HAS SEVERELY LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR STATE PRISONERS. THE COURT HAS APPARENTLY SHIFTED THE EMPHASIS OF HABEAS RELIEF FROM THE VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTION TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF INNOCENCE. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (RCB)