1. The district court concluded that since illegally obtained evidence
found in Petitioners vehicle, was admissible due to'lthe application of
the "inevitible discovery exception" 1, that the evidence could also be used
as a probable cause determination to enter Petitioners home, and gather
more evidence, that was then used to obtain a search warrant.
The Affiant then applied for a search warrant using this evidence
and returned with one that had the incorrect address, with nothing else
on the warrant application to fix this error
concluded that this search was executed in "Good Faith".however the District Court
After further discovery, and the District Courts ruling it was con
cluded that photographs taken during the search where taken prior to the
issuance of the warrant, and required further reconsideration. The District
Court then concluded that these photographs had no bearing on the warrant
and deemed the evidence admissible under the "Independent Source Doctrine"
The questions Petitioner begs this Court to consider are;
The Circuits are split on wther the "inevitable discovery" doctrine
requires the alternative theory to be active during the illegal search,
and can illegally obtained evidence be used as a probable cause determin
ation because it is deemed (admissible! under an exception to the warrant
requirement?
Does the "good ^a^t^1i"doctrine apply when the 4th amendment violation
was based on the officers negligence, and not the magistrates?
Can an invalid warrant on its face in violation of the 4th amendment
be used as an "independent source"? And can the District Court apply that
doctrine without refference to the two prong analysis this Court introduced
in Murray V. United States, 487. U.S. 533 (1988).

2. The District Court overruled Petitioners objection to testimony from
the Governments lab analysis expert, in which she told the jury that the
Governments exhibit was in fact 'marijuana' despite not conducting the re
quired THC threshold test as required by 21 U.S.C.§ 802(16). This objection
was overruled due to the Government telling the Court this was not re
quired by [federal] law, they claimed this was for [state], and this is
not true as the federal definition mandates this test See Id.The question
Petitioner begs this Court to consider is;
Can an expert testify falsely to the jury about an essential element
of the offense to obtain a conviction?

Whether the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine requires the alternative theory to be active during the illegal search, and whether illegally obtained evidence can be used as a probable cause determination