m H'f CitdcpteAsfS 4%L*ft/VV[ c*~
were obfai^erf fmfx>lf*e. l.vfer/no^rh 'o^/
vioj^Hom erf1 Co/vstffiAfro^ ! ^4 tafesrh£~ 0/Sfr/crf~ £oti*rf~j rfn^ 5*fefe. he~
'H&ydly - c>ht^meA - Su^fCes^d-sfad^merrfs a^Jash
fne- n*ks +U aplse. of *7^w ' i>y Hcj-^y
^7^'W e/u*«lf>;t>sy CU costed) J&V/
fW>T j>Ce>rde4 -ft) boUce \ / JCOefdye
ii. 6lA
alfo^eA 'te> tA-I? Of \ZCA/ f$ Je^rerf f£Cjj,\Cffez{ Ce>t*mSe.f r W Coe/Z^f !a4o
fAr fohe£^ ls^il£//2>#fch £>a/ V/<fbotA i~ CeXA'tfS&l ^rcSsnrf~j
\Jtfirf- ftwedv is fierce idfi&r It'S j<X Ives'S
fa (kite, tkrfnj erf fctice^ CoeCC/a^
# _5Li/ WwipuUic tfuV coerce L
whe^ -they revise claims~abidlu ^ tiHz&rs i/yfeA-Ias
\\CoswfeSSL
fcqjtegj- -f-Q Ija*3
C014.
Whether statements obtained during a custodial police interrogation in violation of the Constitution, law, and state law should be suppressed by the district court