Whether the lower court erred in its application of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

No question identified. : . fat . . _ * : : a BAND pate) HS PIG 4609 cyyprap f Chae Ayer F SIN tS gab {reo hp es) Faw Pr. . “SCOT Dy a pHdiss Se Puacig FSTAS NE'OTh 919d BOE de yet “¢ iJ ; — : i— d : ; af : PPw Mi aera ae PLUG £ICUT ” AF SIO ALP ONS OF. PG Ten}. SPO BERS oy pO? Preprn A BI Vg Fap jORHO-EO Soeq AYP a g . eo : . < . . 7 * : . . £ ~ ~ f. = _ = : byvianig > pyed GBI PCOS OE Spar Aye © Fr ee Uy PO PIETIAP WEP PPT TI yee TAOIPT OCT TF EE Ber oRT 46S FG papvorr soon ToT? a HOTT REY PITT IIE OT GGT TAS FOI FCA UIT ED Tee 74GaS: IP F) Fe a 75 Ed ve a = 2 < TORT IT PT PE OA CYT HE Pip OD > ; 2, se 7 FIC DOpPraT F 7 y Lf (poue? id = ead Ay . os CH ? fu . aOR IEE PROV FOL SA PRT (FP) FOALS GE OP? To) Ate) NTE LRTI IEE TRENG SPORT (2) OTS TF FRR GEM SPORT (MANOS I APH ? TE SHT ART vad) Oo FELIS of 3F Siy? ay pt exe 3, PPA CTS "OLS fo RP POFT DT ONIPEY FOU HI-FI RT Sad 7 pe ve Lauer EbE-E Eb OSM) WE UVa POSS Je SANG . DoOIWW eR OL ‘ e are U FOIST, OVAL BNO VC So 2 PES SP Poy Mr IO PO EG POY PE OO Sb See PYM E .OTST . “MK cant WO Posen v SPRANG ce) “ar Sor nu) OH se UP Ly TERE-Ce Sa Ami YooSTT TF a Se