Whether the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine requires the alternative theory to be active during the illegal search, and whether illegally obtained evidence can be used as a probable cause determination

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ' 1. The district court concluded that since illegally obtained evidence found in Petitioners vehicle, was admissible due to'lthe application of the “inevitible discovery exception", that the evidence could also be used : as a probable cause determination to enter Petitioners home, and gather | more evidence, that was then used to obtain a search warrant. The Affiant then applied for a search warrant using this evidence and returned with one that had the incorrect address, with nothing else on the warrant application to fix this error, however the District Court concluded that this Search was executed in “Good Faith". After further discovery, and the District Courts ruling it was comcluded that photographs taken during the search where taken prior to the issuance of the warrant, and required further reconsideration. The District Court then concluded that these photographs had no bearing on the warrant and deemed the evidence admissible under the "Independent Source Doctrine" The questions Petitioner begs this Court to consider are; The Circuits are split on wther the “inevitable discovery" doctrine requires the alternative theory to be active during the illegal search, and can illegally obtained evidence be used as a probable cause determination because it is deemed ‘admissible: under an exception to the warrant ) , requirement? ; ; Does the "good faith\"goctrine apply when the 4th amendment violation was based on the officers negligence, and not the magistrates? Can an invalid warrant on its face in violation of the 4th amendment be used as an “independent source"? And can the District Court apply that doctrine without refference to the two prong analysis this Court introduced in Murray V. United States, 487.U.S. 533 (1988). -i 2. The District Court overruled Petitioners objection to testimony from the Governments lab analysis expert, in which she told the jury that the Governments exhibit was in fact 'marijuana' despite not conducting the required THC threshold test as required by 21 U.S.C.§ 802(16). This objection was overruled due to the Government telling the Court this was not required by [federal] law, they claimed this was for [state], and this is not true as the federal definition mandates this test See Id.The question Petitioner begs this Court to consider is; ; : Can an expert testify falsely to the jury about an essential element ‘of the offense to obtain a conviction? : LIST OF ALL PARTIES The caption of the case in this court contains the names of all parties to this Petition. Petitioner had one co-deféndant who plead guilty and ‘testified for the Government. : LIST OF ALL