Should the decision in Lundberg v. State be entitled to deference under AEDPA?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Should the decision in Lundberg v. State, 127 So.3d. 562 (Fla. 4" DCA 2012), be entitled to deference by the federal courts pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), where the Florida courts 1) arbitrarily denied the Petitioner a full and fair opportunity to establish, pursuant to Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), a viable Fourth Amendment claim that a police agent deliberately created an expectation of privacy in an interview room of a police station, thus inducing a surreptitiously recorded conversation that ultimately became an incriminating feature of the Petitioner’s trial; and 2) erroneously held that his trial counsel was not ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) for failing to investigate and litigate the issue? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no known parties with an interest in this proceeding, other than the petitioner named in the caption of this case. ii