Whether the defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the police officers' use of excessive force, warrantless search and seizure, and failure to provide Miranda warnings

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : TL, Wai ta Vi'e latent of DePetdanst US Conisttechio ns hight Fourth, F-Pth and Bus feetith Amn eridmessh 05 wei as potty Corsay'as Dive Preces$ Clauses, Hoh bi lis athedeprvation of Ife, l'berty on Propels, uth out Due Profes$oPlaw r ght: $@irch and $eiz ed Thidww,'th outa Searchedwa rrant opie falice officers te used rx cessive force andtskeiheD ePeudastwajiet andPersonal Pre ~ petty and Jearched Apudthny Con Sent and 6 Searchedwarrent andthiet are sth e DeRendactunthout-a Searchedwerrant cd with out reading Mi) honda W6riuiNG Gudthe effters CES VE IN tebregatedth eDePenicastThen the apivers cxd Tapa Florida Bile Deporiment, detiny edthe DEfiuidastiwaeiret aud Persona iphocertidtist was his ai bithat he wag ie TBupa Rondawhesithot Chime happen iN Lumberton ALC Fre DeRerdarrtuas NetotSc en er TW + a Violations of defandatch tikth Aue ndmosdHabtopive U5, Consitteeh car to mePReciive 055 Hauice OF Caunse Her Couns @)Alune to $eeK DAA Ovidence aud hastingto oxen e habe his Client ¢ TAT, Wasit a viciathon ofdefendanHeurbees gh Amend mentright ePthe U5, Coustiichle nN Dwe PrecessPanthe Sake, todestoyed DMA anid dePendants Dx Atested would have BK ONS hated ce Rondant ? j TY, Was +avwelatoai of dePendants. kin Amendmentn anToP the U. $, Conssttmianote (INPBFEH VE 458/'6TANMICI2 oP Couns e/ Por Couns 2 HB, lure to uber view 6d SU penid witness ec, foyvtwues ‘