When and how should the courts be bound to the precedent set by the high Court's opinion?

QUESTION(s) PRESENTED to the SUPREME COURT . Explaination: Events in [Riley] happened in 2007, events in ' current case happened in 2011, but the [Riley] decision was not ; handed down until 2014. The indictment/arrest and hearings . , conducted with the current defendant did not happen until 2016. QUESTION (1): When and how should the courts bé bound to the presedent set by the high Court's opinion? Explaination: When two seperate cases have events that are : essentially identicle, a prosecutor may argue *Good-Faith' while another may not. So the outcomes are vastly different. . QUESTION (2): Is it time'to re-evaluate the loopholes that are permitted by the government to excuse illegal searches? QUESTION -(3).: When a Search Warrant stipulates the exact same : language from the Search Affidavit presented by the requesting law enforcement officer, how is the a law enforcement officer able to interpret a Search Warrant as being defective when it is precisely what they requested? . Explaination: Conspiracy is involved when two. or more parties ; engage in an illegal act and each party is culpible for the totality of that single illegal activity. QUESTION (4): How is a Judge and/or a Magistrate held to the same legal standards of responsibility in interpreting a Search Warrant as Law Enforcement? , -ix i ‘ QUESTION (5): I£ ignorance of the law not an excuse when an individual breaks the law, why is the Government allowed to utilize ignorance as an excuse when ignoring the Constitution? Explaination: The Virginia Constitution has provisions that protect an individual for Lllegal Searches and Seizures and General Warrants. QUESTION (6): Why are the State Constitutional Protections also available to defendants against Unconstitutional General : Warants (especially from State and Local Law Enforcement Agents)? Explaination: In Virginia, when a Magistrate denies a Search there is no protocol to document such an event. The Magistrate's record only shows every Warrant as approved. . QUESTION (7): How may a person protect themselves from a Magistrate acting as a ‘Rubber Stamp' for law enforcement when © there is limited to no records when a Magistrate has denied any previous applications? Explaination: With today's Digital Age, recovery of data from ’ electronic devices has become commonplace. . ; QUESTION (8): May we please articulate what constitutes ‘Exigent Circumstances’ now in the Digital Age of computers and cell phones? Explaination: In Virginia, the Magistrates that signed the Search Warrant both has never held an association with the Virgina State Bar. . , , -x: , \ t , QUESTION (9): What qualifications should a Magistrate hold in being able to interpret what is Constitutional when evaluating a Search Affidavit before granting a Search Warrant? Explaination: If we look at both the Words of the Fourth SO ‘Amendment and the intention that inspired those words to protect Americans from the Government overreach. If !Good=Faith': was applied historically throughout our past, the Government could have used it to abuse its power long ago. QUESTION (10): Is it time to re-evaluate and overrule the 1984 split decision of. [Leon]? Explaination: The princible of ignorance of the law is not an excuse ; : QUESTION (11): Why has the Government been giving the ability to utilize the excuse of ignorance when it conducts itself , Explaination: Government officials (Judges, Magistrates, and Law Enforcement) all take Oaths to uphold and protect the U-S. Constitution. These Amendments took a high threshold to be ratified (3/4th of the states). a, QUESTION (12): What are the consequences for the Government that ignore and/or break the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution? . , -xi 1 rf :