Did the District Court err in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the legality of the warrantless entry into Petitioner's apartment, and did the Second Circuit err in applying the Independent Source Doctrine without an evidentiary hearing or specific findings?

Evidence derived from an unlawful warrantless entry of Petitioner’s apartment was thereafter included in a warrant affidavit and ultimately resulted in the issuance of a search warrant to search the same premises. In addition to the inclusion of observations made during the warrantless entry, Petitioner made a sub-stantial showing to the lower courts that numerous items of false information were inserted in to this warrant affidavit and falsely attributed the source of this information to a confidential informant utilized in this case. The District Court failed to rule on the lawfulness of the warrantless entry, relieved the Government of the burden to establish an exception to the warrant requirement, and denied Petitioner both a Suppression Hearing and a Franks Hearing. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmed the District Court’s Denial of the Suppression Motion, premising its’ decision on an application of the Independent Source Doctrine, despite the District Court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing or make a specific finding as to the lawfulness of the warrantless entry. The questions presented are: 1. Did the District Court err in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the legality of the warrantless entry into Petitioner’s apartment and then failing to rule on the legality of the warrantless entry. 2. Did the Second Circuit err in concluding that the Independent Source Doctri ne applied to sustain the issuance of a search warrant when the Court below neither conducted an evidentiary hearing nor made any findings to establish its application.