Whether the State of California violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the petitioner through unconstitutional search and seizure practices

No question identified. : ESTIONS =SENIE 7 3 /| RE Thee teti tone DEC 4 4 [Fj IS m1 — AL)YCE: LIC 5 O QO UI ) Ne STare O ; “ Pin ig, Cab the Feb 8 ms. D CAL) LULA] EC AMES V1 7 4 MDE ke 21)_ON to 2NMAGC U0) d sictf10 ___ Mecaoture © H . 3 I EC1/eVvaTC [use Dolce Oowe 1S 14 L004 he,lAniTe. S ~ i (ons ti tution, — tcl a. (7 late N Aer ther Mgke. 102 || _ ontirce. ca Law abndbingc 20 Al ss 1 | A : 21 se 25 an alreMative othe, 25 OQ Weta ALCMAA ces 2 06 ARTE: 1 Questioy | Questions ResentER.. commer 3 2 Did he State of htt) 4 NOAVE£F OFUOHE AIMSe7 5 Ore ervey Hadbsha © . P FouRTH AMENDMENT QUESTION 7 b I OURTEENTH AMENDMENT LiWESTI 14 16 GACH TO Se y MN 19 20 6. Would he, Car 2, Williv CIM 2 N the. Court promitigate The. 3 IAN) Barbar Shen tP and Sank B XU; a4 || | District Attoma tk Stablé } 26 A Case, die te delib CLATC Okceatiec VA) | ___ Fuereen rit Ane Fret Amewomenr Luzsew) | (QUESTION S PRESENTED... CONTINUE) 2 2. 5 detade, Qla vind oliscover/ Ge MES. 6 ‘thhala PC OP) ANIC , Massive, AMOUN New Inching tia, 10 iyth Amendnent Reght to Luter H PYWVACT Ee PAG. OY 0 be. Wik hg 12 Os TO NaTufle MN CAUASC= ¢ a/; ach gals 13 . 14 Nex ete é, Las TOlcg SAW 13 wlitary Continemes Nee hey ; 16 Decade. Linalle yercu'se. the Keb 7 toa Goee val JCCAUSE ae I 19 MH, 26 YA MCU OATOCrY CL Jee 2, CLT 21 — OXtuloatory. evidence. T2 Control the 2 Narraty Mn Court and Quist Lee 25 LA) Thi se hey DON CE. OWLS 26 OF Ther dia Offend 15 USCS S$] ¥ 27 ; ale (JOES VEL 28 txTh ai aS: ( iT JESTIONS RESENTED. cow TINUED ; This was Ounishment witheut a Trial 7 |) er te torture into a Olea Oa 9 thoi zs, Retna! cdelevibar 10 y LINSITCR AS CO] LA VAR 4 in V4 WA of Ah r (US, Consk ale Furthemore, even after acaulttey | 14 QW =n OLCL / Ky Cool’ he. 15 i LlAc feg ‘nth Ubhic, TOG 16 false SP) wt Which _)' YD 19 a 20 z S 21 eee , 23 | _ 34 | 26 27 F : 28 : NEE Ne ied tees FO M9 3 L_TST OF PARTIES PLAINTIFF 1, Prerre HhoesH DEFENDANTS L STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 UNITED Smares oF Aveerc 7. Cour t of Appea of the State of Calitomia Second Appel late District, Division Six Ad Crim No. B320178 2 ; Superior Court of the State of Califirnia County of Santa Barbara Case “No, 1494152 3 Unrrep STATES Drstetct Courr CENTRAL DISTRICT oF CALIFORNIA Case, No, @@6-0@0080 -00¢-Gog 4] UNTTED STATES SUPREME Coupr APPLICATION No, 244219 | IST OFCASES Pages Abelleira v. Distict Court of Avpeal 17 Cal. 2d 260 at 244 298, 240 3-7 Acheroff v. alKidd 562 US, 731 at 735-736 46 Pon Pttolun Coy Superior Court (3-13 Banister Davis 590 US, 504 <B-5 Bronson v. Schulten 104 lis 400 , at 415 “BS Draper a United Gates 258 WS 207 2g Ex parte Bake, lite, Corp. 279 US 439 B13 Galpin v. Page 85 US, 250 at 373 4 xB-12 (saddard v Ordway 101 US, 745 at 752 KB~5 | TST OFCASES. Pages Griswold v. Comecticut 281 us, 474 IG at lootnote 6, Dissent Hartman v. Maore 547 US, 250 Ob 264 265 2H | In re Mariage, of C. , In rw Nieleon 121 US, 176 at 192 xB-8 Kyles ve Whitley 514 ils, 41g dn 413q-uy1” Laird y. Tatum 4O9 US4 at 1G 7 | ake Carriers Acs V, Macmullan x [S-1 6 UG +98 at 510 273 Ohio v. Robinette 514 us, ZZ at 4 2QZ2A Old Chief vy, United States AIA US 172, at 18f | IST OFCASES. es a Peoole v. Shorts 22 Cal, 24.502 xB-Y d+ 5Ob Heaps. Williams 24 Cal, 24 846 v 3-10 Reid v. Colorado 187 US, 137 at 150-151 i V Feliciano 140 ra ia a ik at Zz Ruccell v Farley 105 Ils, 432 BG Gof ford United Sch, Dict. #7 v. Recbing BST US. 364 at 370 37 —I?-28 United States v. Diaz-Ca rrean — AIBE QA 451 at 465 3] United States v. Lovett 328 US, 202 at BG IABLE OF (CONTENTS eh ee i OPINIONS Beton, wed I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND Crrurori . PROVISIONS TNVoLVED _ i. GURTSDITION 35 M STATEMENT OF THECASE 11 V. REASONS FOR Geantins HE Wer. 12-49 Vi. CONCLUSION Al CONFIDENTIAL Appewry-7A Non-CONFIDENTIAL AprEwDIx-XA Contains [3st oF CASES tron, Higiaal Wht oF po Conus y Aaa rg ye out Htpteatles No NION-ConFIDENTIAL Appespre <)> Corals | a i ian Onginal AT OF lkebeas pus (145 [to_ tof Prohibition Beier f Supe EME Court oF tHe Lion SME