Whether probable cause exists to issue a State search warrant to seize firearms, ammunition, and associated equipment, when the affidavit fails to allege facts sufficient to suggest that the person committed any act with the firearm that would qualify as wanton endangerment

question presented is whether probable cause exists to issue a State search warrant to seize firearms, ammunition, and associated equipment, when the affidavit fails to allege facts sufficient to suggest that the person committed any act with the firearm that would qualify as wanton endangerment. The second question presented is whether a District Court errs by admitting evidence of a defendant’s post-Miranda statement obtained by federal agents in violation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, when that evidence is predicated on the tainted State search warrant and when the defendant, who has appointed counsel on the same underlying State offense, is questioned while in State custody without the benefit of counsel. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES There are no proceedings directly related to this case as required by Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(b)(Gii).