Whether the arresting officer had permission to enter and search the appellant's family property, and whether it was legal for the officer to accept a personal call from his close friend and conspire to make an arrest for the appellant's prior conviction and hostility

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED [, Dis rior enna a \ Pp ye " wrneed orhaue Permission to enler ar authorize cearch pe appe lant<fam (lies propecty ? Wa it legel De the arresting oP Beer f accept apersonal call Prom his close Liend and conspire ts make. an arrest for his Pena prior fennan{Gictin) and hstih, at tried fo convict appellant oy drugs Dr hes fried? . 5. Why WAS Kt fing erpriats Pappelant or DNA. samples taken of f evidence used To convict petitioner fapre st Tine WIGS made frow opemote location fom evidence. a Uhy l evidence destoyed beeen Plea hu’ vs ap pec 2 Shoulduct Trial allerne ant pellaat allorney requested DUA. and or Praceprints beflee anda fer he\ ? aa Whu didnt trvol dlfooney produce propert ownership papers When seveve\ pyors made questions "beuk True ounersh ip? b.Uhy didat Trial counsel either impeach acresting ol hrert rie onal ties wit h The alleged victin OF even shike titements P.lefel 7 as alti and Sunons questo netlthe wal dit A roiddsstond (ld hy di duc{ the shete produce ownership dlocesmenty as p cbilonerd, a E&, Since the alleged victim slated he recieved pain meds ptiorto arcestatd the drugs were und in his rental, in his bag w/H his paperwork, Why wasnt Ke chara eA with posession by hus officer fpyend 9?