Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to suppress evidence used to obtain a search warrant, violating the petitioner's constitutional rights

ESTION(S) PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUPRESS EVIDENCE USED ‘TO OBTAIN SEARCH WARRANT VIOLATED THE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. A. Philadelphia Police unlawful warrant request. B. The Philadelphia Ploce trespass onto’ the Petitioner's property to. obtain evience constituted a Fourth Amendment search. C. Without the search warrant information unlafully obtained from unconstitutional trash pulls, the remaining information is stale and cannot support : probale cause finding to justify issuance of warrant. D. The evidence introduced in trial should have been excluded because the were obtanied by stale information and flawed search warrant. 1. STALENESS OF SEARCH WARRANT 2. Whethe the attorney's failure to argue staleness of the warrant under his motion to. supress establishes ineffective assistance of counsel. II. WHETHER PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTSD WERE. VIOLATED BY DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER DENIAL HIS MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 33 SINCE THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION IN COUNT THREE. 1. There are insufficient evidence to support a conviction to count three. (i)