Does a mistake of law by police in the stopping of a vehicle render the subsequent search violative of the Fourth Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Larry Norton is serving a sentence of life incarceration which originated from evidence seized after a traffic stop for speeding in a construction zone which police admitted was pretextual but which was argued to have been a legal stop under state law. At the motion to suppress hearing, two officers swore to irreconcilably conflicting facts and petitioner proved that the construction zone was inactive so the reduced speed limit, relied on by police for the stop, was NOT in effect. The lower courts ignored the perjury by one of the officers and held that the stop and’ search were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 1.) Does a mistake of law by police in the stopping of a vehicle render the subsequent search violative of the Fourth Amendment? 2.) Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s supervisory power 10 vacate his conviction . and’sentence? . 3.) Where Petitioner’s sentence statutory maximum sentence and his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was enhanced, based on the fact of prior convictions which were not pleaded in indictinent, not presented 1o the jury, and not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, was Petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment constitutional rights? i