Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. First, this court has held that the use of a detection device by law enforcement on a citizens person, places, or things without a warrant, which reveals the presence of lawful behavior constitutes : : a search under the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies to so-called narcotics detection canines who have been proven, to a scientific certainty, to indicate only to the presence of the non-contraband odors of methyl benzoate, acetic acid, pipernol, and benzaldehyde, instead of any actual controlled substances. And further, if counsel's failure to raise , such a question is‘one that is debatable amongst. jurist of reason, or deserves encouragement to proceed further. oo II. Second, this Court has held that Fourth Amendment decisions ' rendered by the Court while a déeféndant is on ditect appeal do not apply retroactively to those cases if the decision announces ; a new rule of constitutional law, that is, one that is not clearly dicatated by prior precedent of the Supreme Court. This case . poses the question of whether the same rule applies to cases : in which this Court clearly states that the rule it is announcing was dictated and controlled by prior precedent, so that it should be applied retroactively to cases on direct appeal. And further, : if counsel's failure to raise such a question is one that is debatable amongst jurist of reason, or deserves encouragement to proceed further. . : III. Third, this Court-has held that the Constitution does not “permit the State to convict a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State had clearly informed the citizen was available to him. This case poses the question of whether the same rule ; applies to seizures under the Fourth Amendment so that when a... > citizen complies with the driving instructions issued by the a , . Secretary of State's Office, their subsequent seizure would be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.. And further, if this question is debatable amongst jurist of reason. IV. Fourth, this Court has held that a defendant is entitled to conflict free representation by counsel, though qualifying . the right to require a defendant to demonstrate prejudice when a potential, undisclosed conflict arises. This case poses the question of at what point has a defendant produced sufficient evidence to support a claim that prejudice exist and that an attorney and the government's failure to disclose potential con: : flicts has so undermined the right to independent counsel as to be constitutionally impermissible. And further, if this question : is debatable amongst jurist of reason. ii ,