Whether the district court's findings were correct in light of the constitutional search and seizure claims and procedural due process violations

(T) ?ETtTLOiOeP^ STATE A "PxcrnA RceE CASd F©X *U>a>9T5TVTCBUAC. vJ^oL^-nco^ep irUicQiAL 5eAXCM Aioo Sex2o£G X/XA ^BTTTsp^t ’jx D£ " e Lecttcoojpc . 'pu^surr m^Magewc^Ln/wx 5uaAjtsoj^^G^TTX9CS * OJeeeTlieV ? foetmji eoosroem? oajo^ XQ^ al,55k u,S. SsSs^tMlP C <S?ocrr,~e>euL, 550 U«S. &MH, 5To S , I3xb> THE. 5™ axecuxr E'RR VxA faxlore . to Fe\h3£uj THE ^GTxOfO 53 Ce) F.R.C im.P. "T'o AragMb \JXAakj» Request Pu^u^tot fo Ruje_f5^a) A PC NOVO REVTEUl. Fact was xo ABoie OP IbXSCftg-XXONi 'Kevjxeco HaQ“occ MeeJa u, t)ebouse USOC nJ©, H ! 2.S CVGcq /S~KCr'fc.jOOr 2.H-10HSJ * (3j ARE TW£ OXSTfclEX COURT'S Fxmqea XlS ^qcdottdCORXeCi /TKJCjDgfcecT o IL tviR.‘s, FxrunuCiS AS SoL-H^ (5ll TSOESTHL Aiyvemu Ialki T ^ ^PPLlXflTSlg To TUB OASE-e (5T\ W'H J/ a He "mei £Rmrr omUl/TuI Search AWO Seizo ££ FACTUAL 'PlE^DXAjGjS OUTLXMeD XiM T^EHXXEO vO tf&JS ACugCaA txo«os ^ ?eTxnx(0<^Ls Ha use ^ m3 F*xu 0lous ex ^ecosao^c ReaoesT Pox aUETUour A S?eAE5 KEttXPUQ oL OTWxrC mote DeFovjxre 5-mrtmaoT^ x^ which <Pe xco late * ^C^XJi:fcX> ^^^TtruTazD^c. Access to counts to FernsTXAxrA Ua_OL4Tx©rO ©FS fmecH <AooO SEXCorZ£ 0iXTQDfOtrX CSj £>Xk TUX ^TSTXxc COUC/ Cf<2c E(UL VXA MEUtSX ALLOtXTUO, vXTXOXeitTO FXLC Hxs ^BSTCLASg/' nj<?X fOEUfcX. AO x/XSeqoGj "mX tw -Deficcrewtai^ ^ n"bue ( «5tk£„ f " Broom ..a Taxu>g. g E<l f. ^ 3/^ . 3 T 0 -Ci^xoifc) i ^V_X^ c-Oomo03^ 5HT u.s. IW . ZIP (ZOOC, ) GU ueee?''Pi l CTD iXOlJL^'S CUlmS CusAiteH BA5eteSS PhRSoaxt TT 2 8 U5C fr ^t5_£eKiKlKil); O^ twey UcLam ARC^Gte Bams ^ laco o^Pact PuasuA^TTo IjgjggJSC, 43s ^.319^5 3 UM^TUegF am A^USe OFOXSt^^ 9O^0A,0T^ —(e)Ati ° fqi5A )WE^TM£ AU6G.ATOK1S Famefji ) ~ TvJTHSTX 5) °t=UjSXCiOAL 4 -XR.CATX 0WAL OX WHOLLY XIOCKiSAXaUT ^^OAK3TTo ChEfcTTOK, y) S,?? -^C(TXX15LL -!a-VJaNI ox LOSX3 5ornB AU_eCnAixouS meRjECf uxLrRgL^ ? ro