Whether the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal erred in its decisions in this case, which conflict with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court

No question identified. : [roV(S FRestwik, The Petitioner would note that the “Confidential Informant” used by the Police in obtaining the Warrant was actually the Petitioner’s spouse, yet police never disclosed this fact in the application for a search warrant for fear the application would be denied due to violation of Mattis’ constitutional rights to marital privilege and against self-incrimination. The Petitioner would also note that when police initially received information from the “Confidential Informant” (CI) that a FedEx shipping box was being sent to the Petitioner containing a large amount of cash, police failed to get a search warrant, instead claiming that exigent circumstances existed that constituted an emergency situation. This summary of facts has produced two questions of a Constitutional nature that will impact both the Petitioner and others similarly situated as follows: 1. When police know that a “confidential informant” being used to secure a search warrant is a suspect’s spouse, is the failure to note the spousal relationship on the application for the search warrant a violation of a person’s 4 Amendment right against unlawful search and seizures, their 5" Amendment right not to incriminate themselves under marital privilege protection and their 14° Amendment right to due process of law? . SOFC 2. Can “exigent circumstances” resulting in a warrantless searelr ever exist when the item desiring to be searched is in the control of the U.S. Postal Service in violation of a person’s 4 Amendment right against unlawful search and seizures, and their 14° Amendment right to due process of law? ii