Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. INRE: PORNGRAPHIC MATERIAL; PORN, PORNGRAPHIC PICTURES AND IMAGES: A) Can a pornographic conviction of Possession of Child Pornography stand where the Supreme Court of the United States RULED that such pictures/images IS LEGAL and permissible pursuant to : U.S.C.A. 1; U.S.C.A. 4; U.S.C.A. 14, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389; Ashcroft v. ACLU, 122 S. Ct. 1700? B) Does Petitioner have a Free Speech Protection and safeguard protected under the Free Speech Constitution Amendment safeguarded by Due Process pursuant to U.S.C.A. 1, 5, 14; Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389; Ashcroft v. ACLU, 122 S. Ct. 1700? C) Does Petitioner have a Right to Privacy in a nonworking, torn up and defunct laptop computer and cell phone data, stored data consisting of child pornography, pornography pictures, and images? (Some, much of which Petitioner was not aware of, not Petitioner’s own, or, belonging to someone else, other than Petitioner?) U.S.C.A. 1, 4, 5, 14 (Material was not Petitioner’s and __ Petitioner knew nothing about any pornographic images!)? D) Did Oklahoma exceed their scope and enter arbitrariness in making and framing its new, but changed, child pornography laws in not considering the legality, legalness of First Amendment Free Speech laws, constitution violating the United States Supreme Court precedent striking down the laws as unconstitutional in part pursuant to U.S.C.A. 1, 14; Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389; Ashcroft v. ACLU, 122 S. Ct. 1700? _ 2. IN RE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE VIOLATIONS: : : : ' A) Was a search warrant required to see, find, obtain and seize, and to tear apart a computer that was torn up and defunct in search of child pornography, pornography, and pornography images? B) Is the stored data on cell phones and on computers protected by the right to privacy? New Rulings: Carpenter v. U.S., 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018); Byrd v. USS., 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018); Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018). C) Was _ a search warrant required for the police to detain, threaten, coerce, duress Petitioner while holding him in custody for nearly three (3) hours in forcing Petitioner to confess and tell the police where the cell phone with " cell phone data was stored, and also the torn up defunct laptop-cell phone-equipped computer with computer data and alleged stored pornographic pictures was stored and not working? D) Was the police conduct arbitrary where no special or exigent circumstances existed? (Non-violent situations?) E) Was the search warrant violative and wrongfully implemented two (2) years AFTER the fact? F) Was the detainment of Petitioner wrongful and excessive? : . 3. IN RE: SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S TORN UP, DEFUNCT CELL PHONE-EQUIPPED LAPTOP COMPUTER, CELL PHONE, DATA: A) Was the warrantless search and seizure of Petitioner’s workplace valid? B) Was the warrantless search and seizure of Petitioner’s torn up, defunct laptop-cell phone-equipped computer with computer data valid? C) Did the Stillwater Police Detective violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights by creating images of child pornography himself to submit as Exhibit(s) of his own evidence by downloading the one (1) pornographic video from “any user” or “any web address” not linked to Petitioner in which the Petitioenr had no knowledge ot did not know anything about such file or images, pictures, pomography or child pornography? D) Did Petitioner have and maintain the constitutional right to privacy? E) Did the Police wrongfully create their probable cause? F) Was the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree doctrine violated? G) Was the lack of consent by both the Petitioner was the business owner, Ms. Fitch, to search Petitioner’s workplace without a search warrant violative? H) Was the length of delay in holding Petitioner inside a police-dominated environment in the workplace parking lot and without a search warrant violative? 4. IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RELIEF DUE TO THE NEW RULINGS HANDED