Whether the federal court impermissibly added an element to the expectation-of-privacy standard for a third-party overnight guest, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254(a)(1)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . 1. In applying Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), and Minnesota vCarter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), to a habeas claim based on the states unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for [expectation of privacy] of a third party overnight “guest, the fedral court "impermissibly added an element that . otherwise does not appear, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254 (a) (1), that petitioner's fleeing the residence upon entry of the police eviscerated his standing as an overnight guest. 2. In applying Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), toa habeas corpus claim based on the state's unreasonable application . of the Constitutional standard for probable cause, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1), the federal court impermissibly . concluded that police did not have to verify or corroborate : averments in probable cause regarding a non-informants ; information to authorities, and that trial counsel was not deemed ineffective for failing to challenge warrant [probable cause] used to obtain trace and tracking device that lead to the petitioner's whereabout and confiscation of drugs. . 3. In applying Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 , (1981), to a habeas corpus claim based on the state's _—_sumreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for . police entry in a third party residence searching for the subject == of an arrest warrant, in violation of 28 U.S.c. §2254 (d)(1), the federal court impermissibly held that police without exigent party residence without warrant. |