Does the intentional use of the *67 feature create a justifiable expectation of privacy?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the intentional use of the *67 feature to obfuscate one’s phone number create a justifiable, reasonable, or a legitimate expectation of privacy which mandates suppression under a Fourth Amendment analysis? 2. Is it improper for a prosecutor to knowingly illicit testimony from a witness in a manner to circumvent well established rules of search and seizure? 3. Was there sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner? 4. Did the Connecticut Habeas Court improperly apply the doctrine of res judicata?