1) Whether, Wilson's Warraantless Arrest and Detention WITHOUT PROBABLE
CAUSE violates the Fourth Amendment , NOT ONLY when it precedes, but also
when it follows the start of THE JUDICIAL PROCESS in a criminal lease;:.
Manuel v.City Of Joliet,Illinois, 137 S.6t.911,197 L.Ed.2d 312(2017)
Wilson argues that,he was DETAINED! - that is to say,SEIZED - in the
.Cook County Jail for over Two Years (990) Days,and in tbeldndisEiDe-
partment OffCorrections for over Twenty Years (Since February - 2000).
Based on FALSIFIED POLICE REPORTS and a FABRICATED DNA ANALYSIS. In
violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from UNREASONABLE
SEIZURE.
The prosecution's reference to the BROAD DATA BASE used by (The State's
Expert Witness), produced an INACCURATE FREQUENCY ESTIMATE for petitions
er Wilson's subgroup.
The MULTIPLCATION METHOD used by (The State's Expert Witness), greatly
magnified the error.
The resulting Statistical Probability for petitioner Wilson's ENTIRE
DNA PATTERN may be in error by THREE OR MORE orders of magnitude (e.g.
1 in 49,000 could really be 1 in 49).
The state's expert "witness Statistical Probability Methods resulted in
''TPEMEND0US ERRORS" and should not have been used without more EMPIRICAL
DATA.

2) Whether, the 4th Amendment PROHIBITS government officials from
detaining petitioner Wilson in THE ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
Which happened where the police held Wilson in custody on a WARRANTLESS
ARREST, On:June 9th,1997. Without any reason before the Formal Onset of
a criminal proceeding,but,also, whether the 4th Amendment violation also
occurred when the LEGAL PROCESS WENT WRONG.
Where, the GRAND JURY's probable - Cause determination was predicated
solely on the false statements of the Police Officer, and the state's
Expert Witness,FABRICATED / INACCURATE DNA ANALYSIS .

Therefore, Whether,petitioner Wilson has been confined without CONSTIfU
TUTIONALLY ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION. Where, the JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, has
gone forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the 4th amendment 's
probable cause requirement. For that reason the UNLAWFUL JUDICIAL PROSES
CESS cannot?: extinguish - the 4th Amendment Violation.

3) Whether, petitioner Wilson 's detention was NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE
CAUSE because the judge's PRELIMINARY HEARING ORDER holding Wilson for
trial was based, only on ''POLICE FABRICATIONS " (The State's Expert Wit-:
- FABRICATED / INACCURATE DMA ANALYSIS). Therefore, Wilson 's
DETENTION IS UNREASONABLE in violation of the 4th Amendment.ness

4) Whether,the prosecution 's use of PERJURED TESTIMONY to procure (THE
INDICTMENT, THE CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT) of petitioner Wilson, is
as INCONSISTENT with the RUDIMENTARY DEMANDS OF JUSTICE as is the
obtaining of a like result by intimidation.
Moreover

Whether Wilson's warrantless arrest and detention without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment