1. In applying Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), and Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), to a habeas corpus claim based on the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for [expectation of privacy] of a third party overnight guest, the federal court impermissibly added an element that otherwise does not appear, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1), that petitioner's fleeing the residence upon entry of the police eviscerated his standing as an overnight guest.

2. In applying Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), to a habeas corpus claim based on the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for probable cause, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1), the federal court impermissibly concluded that police did not have to verify or corroborate averments in probable cause regarding a non-informants information to authorities, and that trial counsel was not deemed ineffective for failing to challenge [probable cause] used to obtain trace and tracking device that lead to the petitioner's whereabout and confiscation of drugs.

3. In applying Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), to a habeas corpus claim based on the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for police entry in a third party residence searching for the subject of an arrest warrant, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d)(1), the federal court impermissibly held that police without exigent circumstances can enter third party residence without search warrant.

Whether the federal court impermissibly added an element to the expectation-of-privacy standard for a third-party overnight guest, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §2254(a)(1)