Whether trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment by failing to investigate and litigate a warrantless search of petitioner’s cell phone that preceded the issuance of a warrant and which was not disclosed in the application for that warrant, and which thus violated the Fourth Amendment. The Petitioner, Arold Mathis, asserts that counsel was ineffective, and that the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying his application for a Certificate of Appealability. The present case affords the Court an opportunity to revisit the independent source doctrine, which inappropriately encourages law enforcement officers to conceal from neutral magistrates the fact of prior, warrantless searches. i