Did the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment justify the warrantless search of Petitioner's vehicle?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment justify the warrantless search of Petitioner’s vehicle, which had in plain view only innocuous objects—i.e., cell phones and condoms-that could not have given rise to a reasonable belief that it contained evidence of sex trafficking? 2. By what standard of review should a Court of Appeals consider a District Court’s denial of a Franks hearing? 3. Did the District Court violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him by admitting into evidence testimonial hearsay? 4. Did the District Court commit a procedural error of law by failing to adequately consider all of the factors required for sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)? PARTIES BELOW The parties before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit were as follows: 1. The Petitioner, Dkyle Bridges, was represented by Luther E. Weaver, III, of the law firm of Weaver & Associates, P.C., 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 2102, Philadelphia PA, 19109. Attorney Weaver was appointed to represent the Petitioner pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. 2. The United States of America was represented by Jennifer A. Williams, then the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,, Robert A. Zauzmer, Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of Appeals, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106. and Jessica A. Urban, Trial Attorney, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, U.S. Department of Justice. RELATED CASES United States v. Anthony Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Docket No. 22-2064 (Appeal of co-defendant, pending) “ii