Whether a criminal defendant's constitutional rights were violated by the admission of evidence obtained through an allegedly improper search and seizure

X). a fleujS RrsV AM^Neine/lV pnvileg "Vo sVueldt Vver ^acirce^ -Vru.wjp?. CrirairvaX c^e^w^fyl's v)t<^W Ar/be>,vA<vien-V r'l^j/feV4© CjQj^rorvVouV^i^ l^urWA-Vk A^jejncl^iein.4cW^ ^ooe&S Vicj^A"Vo 4ke_ fctvir Q^nWvS^raV A.). 0%cX £>* vur'Vo V~c^Co^(\ a,~z~QrA &Q ck cuvcl fHeA^l ^ €AA^I xa£cV^g*\, O't Coai-V oilieroU_<\^ Oue^ ^VooeSSj Uaick -V-H q^ 'U&y-AeeMl'x awA e^ic^WVk <arv^enel/ vierj 4^c^uiresl 2)), (JDqs defec^e £mvgI of <2ax/i$dl C$V (^eXencAcwvV <3. I/xgAocUok o-^ S>«xWv A*vaen£>tnen4, HI. OaaS 4W, ^e»exa\ K^YvV a-l Access of 6/V»efc*iCe. of <SXCu\^Gv\onJ Vata& orA -W. ^ourVeenik h*e*>ol/vienlregain ^r^J2>cjrvo.W^ ofCe\V f\voNicwot all 6>\Ve/vVs tuj ? 5J. O^V^-VrW-*" CoixVeSSiQ>*x 6ja$ obVawve<4 «n ViolaA-Un <sV 4\ve, PvCW\^ SvV^Vv &.wdt four^-ee^-V^ hx*JtrA(**i<\\ oV IW. (3). l(JaS ocImAV^ vyvVc <£u tc^eAC^, Co/iVe/v-V^ of SeAreU cirvA Se^v'z^ur-c cx vagjW^ &^ ©vCH 111(204/1 -V fear4k AvV'ul fCUX I