WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIARY'S APPLICATION OF THE Strickland/Pierce
STANDARD WAS UNREASONABLE, WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO LITIGATE VIOLATIONS
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 TO INCULPATORY EVIDENCE
OBTAINED FROM AN UNLAWFUL "WARRANTLESS ARREST" SUBSTANTIATED ON ALLEGED DRUG
BUYS MORE THAN TWO MONTHS OLD, WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE TIME THAT A CRIME
WAS BEING OR ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED OR REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY WAS AFOOT, IN CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN Terry V.
Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Dunaway V. New York , 442 U.S. 200 (1978); AND
Commonwealth V. Melendez , 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 19%) REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF ANY
EVIDENCE SEIZED?

Whether the Pennsylvania judiciary's application of the Strickland/Pierce standard was unreasonable