whether-counsel-provided-ineffective-assistance-for-failing-to-file-a-meritorious-motion-to-suppress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I, WHETHER COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR FAILING TO FILE A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO SUPPRESS 1. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 u.s. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574 (1986) . 3. Strickland v. Washington, 466 u.s. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) I. WHETHER SHERIFF LECLERE'S AFFIDAVIT SHOWED SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE ARREST FOR JACKSON 1. Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 u.s. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031 (1971) IU. WHETHER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF JACKSON'S FACEBOOK WAS GENERAL, OVERBROAD, UNREASONABLE, AND INFRINGED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY 1. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 u.s. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022 (1971) 2. United States v. Blake, 868 F.3d 960 ( 11th Cir. 2017) 3. Katz v. United States, 389 u.s. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507 (1967) 4. United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 ( 6th Cir. 2010 ) : IV. WHETHER THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR JACKSON'S CELL PHONE VIOLATEDTHE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNDER THE : PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT 1. Groh v Ramirez, 540 us. 551, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (2004) 2. United States v George, 975 f.2d 72 ( 2nd Cir. 1992 ) ; ii STATEMENT OF PARTIES IN INTEREST Daniel Louis Jackson #16958-029 FCI Bennettsville : Federal Correctional Institution PO BOX 52020 Bennettsville, SC 29512 Solicitor General of the United States Room 5616 ; Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001