I. WHETHER ONE WHO HAS THE REQUISITE
STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS BASED
ON CONTENTIONS, WHICH IF VALIDATED
SHOW HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED, MUST FIRST PROVE HIS
POSSESSION WAS LAWFUL?

II. WHEN THE APPEALS COURT RULES, IN A
FORFEITURE CASE THEN ON APPEAL
THAT THE APPELLANT, HAS TITLE III
STANDING: DOES THAT RULING BECOME
"THE LAW OF THE CASE" AND AS SUCH
CAN IT BE IGNORED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT (FOLLOWING A REMAND) WITH
IMPUNITY?

III. WHETHER, GIVEN THE ONUS IS ON THE
G O V E R N M E N T T O P R O V E
FORFEITABILITY, AND THE LAWFULNESS
OF ANY AND ALL SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, CAN THE DISTRICT COURT, AS
A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO PROVIDING
THE CLAIMANT A HEARING ON HIS
MOTION TO SUPPRESS, REQUIRE HIM TO
SURRENDER HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS.

Whether one who has the requisite standing to move to suppress based on contentions, which if validated show his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, must first prove his possession was lawful?