Whether a wrongfully convicted Section 2254 petitioner's U.S. constitutional rights violation claims that were not previously exhausted in the state courts must be presented to the federal courts before they can rule on the merits

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Concecning the. Statutory Requirements that gs a Federal Habeas Corpus Spetion 2254 Petitiner. a properly. exlaist jn the highest Court of is Stote hs Ue Ss Constttytlonal ¥Rights violation cl ions ___. ee that he NOW ALSO. PRESENTS 4 the Eedeml ae Courts before the Federal Courts must rule upon | Miolation claims fo wnt QUESTION « Ww How, stipthiac in litigation do,a_weongtally convicted Section 2254 Petttioner's Ur Sy oe Constitvtional Rights.v lolation claims NOW ALSO a PRESENTED te the Federal Courts have to be in. ae comparison -e Rights violation —_“~ claims. that wece glready. properly exhavsted in the a highest Court of his She! belget the Feder. a Cours must cule spon ;the merits of his..Uy Se —_ a Cnshtutional Rights violation claims in ocdec te be in compliance with Proceducal Due Process 0. oe eguicements Poo ___@ Ts tt cleacly established U.S. Gasttytional Law {that there. is NO" Socfal Worker Exception to nf the Yth Amendment Warrant Requirement 2 BZ) Is it leacly established th Law that q_ warrantless forced setzuce, ofa _5 year old child inside, a home, atthe orders of a Department of ee Children and Families (DCE) investigator can ONLY be a ystitigd the DCF inveshe ator'!s“ceasonable belfef a ‘that the child {sin seriows danger of sufecing severe. physical hacm before a Warrant ox Court Order canbe obtained? (B) Cons) e { e fact that e EVER <isted Ay) ee + plated to police o Fiest Responders caper q . fo Keaced medical emecqency_or seciovs imucy cegarding ee the. Petttionec!s chit @considecing the tact that a there. NEVER existed any calls placed +o the police or. ae fo the. Depachpeat af Childea and, Families qhusc, _thetling cenocting Child Abyse, Child Neglect or Reckless co Child Endin ecciant.¢ and @)considerin Be tect that there ee NEVER existed ordvious evidence of any oc pcobeble _. a cause to actest the Petttiener for any Child Abuse, Child nen Aeglecl, ac Reckless Child Endaggecment VET she. Sinks — Ist Pll contends that thece existed “an exigency regarding. ae the. Petitioner's child inaide the Pelitiones's Fomet? | QUESTIONS _._Q ITs it clearly established U.S. Constitutional Law that {a -warcantless forced entey inte.the. Petthinects enticely eee fenced.in. private. peopecty..( premised undec the. "Emergency. — A d Exception ty the Uth Amendment. Warrant Regvizement). ee MUST BF LIMITED TO. detecenining. wether er ft nn there. existed an exigency ce the Petttioner's PE ERE: BEER eset ty Pe one s—— _ & Jp-ik cleacly. established U.S. Const{ttiong| Lay. that. [the _SWAT Team violated the Petttionecle Yth Amendment ae Rights by conducting a warrantless focced entry tte his nn encticely. fenced in private, propecty Calleredly premised ce under the... Emecgency, Aid ception") by FIRST a snducting some Bther secondary pallce dv¥y in his __.._tback aed curtilage by DETAINING him ducing an ae tnvestt tonof an alleged MISDEMEANOR. ceime nn BEFORE. actually enttcng bis home. 4 determine ‘. uu. whether oc not there existed an exigency ceqacding This child inside his home -Castth vo one ele inside ee hishome) 2. Saeeneanne ' al tle EB (i Li pt eo , | | eee ©) B®EQ @ ace <n __@ eee pep eaeeess [INS YP Pe sloy re =" EBS Se ny ¥S Se | -/| pt 5 oY Se a: > te ap | : avs : ig PEE aS QP 4 s. EeeREYY El iG SP Peet he 22 re pote. |S <c SSS AN BS Ss > st n ce He PPB ME — Sieh & LR EB E S> ae: +5 Seago © Fi ag od ad ee 8 Rene he JECERE ES oo E fp eR aE rhgceer es | Lu Bab ok RD) WR OS BF Pye cee eS s ee Ase an e-aa of OsES cB PeEQe 2 lo eee we = TTS | S8 BO Res Bus “E-| ¢| R~ iw | @ VEE eS ELS ef gs ESOS tee © Sf o | Wee aS Be ase. eRe) & "a | a eer e Ma 3s 8 5 | iS Pas Bl a V7 ate Pie renee pp : 5 219 5. S ~ i es Sb. GY) | kg Rhee PRRs LORE Bs | BE MEL: is acre Fire er f DEE |B YC ef i ea ETE bS 83° B TEETER (5)| Florida Eiest District Court of Avveal case number DIG-342\1 or SOSNOWSKI -VSSTATE OF FLORIDA _.. | B08 So 3d S65 (FL Isr DCA 2020), decision on _ Pe onec's Motion alleging ineffecti