Whether the Pennsylvania judiciary's application of the Strickland/Pierce standard was unreasonable

QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIARY'S APPLICATION OF THE Strickland/Pierce STANDARD WAS UNREASONABLE, WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO LITIGATE VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 TO INCULPATORY EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM AN UNLAWFUL "WARRANTLESS ARREST" SUBSTANTIATED ON ALLEGED DRUG BUYS MORE THAN TWO MONTHS OLD, WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE TIME THAT A CRIME WAS BEING OR ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED OR REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WAS AFOOT, IN CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Dunaway V. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1978); AND Conmonwealth V. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996) REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE SEIZED? SUGGESTED ANSWER IS: 11/16/2023