Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the district court's judgment regarding probable cause for arrest and the constitutional implications of post-arrest evidence and falsified affidavits

No question identified. : Key Constitutional and Legal Questions 1. Fourth Amendment Violation —Lack of Probable Cause at Arrest eo Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s judgment that there was probable cause to arrest the petitioner, despite the preliminary hearing judge's earlier determination that there was no probable cause. 2. Post-Arrest Evidence and Beck v. Ohio eo Whether the Ninth Circuit improperly relied on post-arrest evidence, such as the petitioner’s profession as a chef and the discovery of a knife at the crime scene, to affirm the existence of probable cause. This contradicts the constitutional standard set forth in Beck v. Ohio, which prohibits using evidence obtained after an arrest to retroactively justify the arrest. 3. Fourth Amendment Violation — Franks v. Delaware and Falsified Evidence o Whether the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Detective Dokweiler included falsified or misleading statements in his probable cause affidavit, specifically regarding witness identification. Under Franks v. Delaware, the use of false or reckless statements to secure probable cause is unconstitutional. 4. Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation o Whether the failure of the Arcata Police Department to conduct a proper investigation and secure the crime scene, as found by the National Police Foundation, constitutes a violation of the petitioner’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This failure could have prevented the discovery of 1 exculpatory evidence and thus undermined the fairness of the criminal investigation. 5. Sixth Amendment Violation — Misidentification and the Right to Face Accusers o Whether the petitioner’s right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses against him was violated by relying on hearsay or unverified statements from unidentified witnesses, who allegedly identified the petitioner as the “stabber,” without the petitioner being given the opportunity to challenge these accusations. 6. Use of Blood Evidence and the Assumption of Guilt o Whether the assumption that the blood on the petitioner’s clothes was the victim’s, despite the majority of it being the petitioner’s own, constitutes an unreasonable assumption that violates the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights. The inference that blood evidence automatically implied guilt, despite other factors like severe injuries sustained by the petitioner, undermines the requirement for objective evidence in determining probable cause. List of All