Calling it a night, Petitioner Cameron Watkins closed the curtains of his motel room, partially un- dressed, and took to his bed. A police officer, looking for a different person who had committed a crime nearby, pressed himself against the window to peer through a one-inch gap in the curtains. He saw a handgun on the bed. As a result, Mr. Watkins was ar- rested, convicted of being a felon in possession of a fire- arm, and imprisoned. The question presented is:

Whether the Fourth Amendment allows a police of- ficer to unnaturally position himself to peer into an in- tentionally obscured private dwelling, simply because he is not trespassing when doing so.

(1)

I. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment permits a sentencing court to personally assume an investigative and prosecutorial role, such as independently locating evidence, directing the amendment of the presentence report, and examining its own witnesses over multiple days to establish facts increasing a defendant’s sentence, when the government has declined to seek that increase, without violating the defendant’s right to be sentenced by a neutral and detached tribunal?

Il. Whether, consistent with this Court’s decision in Burns v. United States, o01 U.S. 129 (1991), and the Due Process Clause, a sentencing court may reject a factual stipulation that was a material inducement to a defendant’s guilty plea, and find facts increasing the defendant’s offense level nearly sixfold, without providing notice more specific than boilerplate plea- agreement language advising that the court is not bound by the parties’ recommendations?

-j-