1). a fleujS RrsV AM^Neine/lV pnvileg "Vo sVueldt Vver ^acirce^ -Vru.wjp?. CrirairvaX c^e^w^fyl's v)t<^W Ar/be>,vA<vien-V r'l^j/feV- 4© CjQj^rorvVouV^i^ l^urWA-Vk A^jejncl^eim.4- cW^ ^ooe&S Vicj^A- "Vo 4ke_ fctvir Q^nWvS^raV

A.). 0%cX £>* vur'Vo V~c^Co^(\ a,~z~QrA &Q ck pS^cVuoiV-.c/e^AOXtAaVUut cuvcl fHeA^l ^ €AA^I xa£cV^g*, O't Coai-V oilier- oU_<\^ Oue^ ^VooeSSj Uaick -V-H q^ 'U&y-AeeMl'x awA e^ic^WVk <arv^enel/ vierj 4- ^c^uiresl

2)), (JDqs defec^e £mvgI <Jeftci<zA4- perform*^ of <2ax/i$dl C$V (^eXencAcwvV <3. I/xgAocUok o-^ S>«xWv A*vaen£>tmen4- ,

HI. OaaS 4W, ^e»exa\ K^YvV a-l Access of 6/V»efc*iCe. of <SXCu\^Gv\onJ Vata& orA -W. ^ourVeenik h*e>ol/vienl- regain ^r^J2>cjrvo.W^ of- Ce\V f\voNi- cwot all 6>\Ve/vVs tuj ?

5J. O^V^-VrW-*" CoixVeSSiQ>*x 6ja$ obVawve<4 «n ViolaA-Un <sV 4\ve, PvCW\^ SvV^Vv &.wdt four^-ee^-V^ h*JtrA(**i<\\ oV IW. C.OlASA-V'Vl^VXotA.^

(3). l(JaS ocImAV^ vyvVc <£u tc^eAC^, Co/iVe/v-V^ of SeAreU cirvA Se^v'z^ur-c cx vagjW^ &^ ©vCH

Whether a criminal defendant's constitutional rights were violated by the admission of evidence obtained through an allegedly improper search and seizure