Was the Ohio Supreme Court in error when it refused to accept jurisdiction over a matter that, like the instant petition, involves a substantial Constitutional question, to wit, violation of the petitioner's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, when police officials deliberately misidentified the cell phone's owner as belonging to someone else because they knew that there was no probable cause to warrant a search of petitioner's phone under his own name?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was the Ohio Supreme Court in error when it refused to accept jurisdiction over a matter that, like the instant petition, involves a substantial Constitutional question, to wit, violation of the petitioner’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, when police officials deliberately misidentified the cell phone’s owner as belonging to someone else because they knew that there was no probable cause to warrant a search of petitioner’s phone under his own name? 2. Was the Eighth District Court in error when it upheld the trial court’s ruling that the mere presence of a cell phone in the vehicle at the time of the applicant’s arrest constituted in itself and alone probable cause to search the cell phone’s contents? 3. Did the Eighth District err when it held that probable cause to search the applicant’s phone did ; not require showing individual ownership of the cellphone and so that applicant’s counsel’s failure to introduce the body cam evidence to support his theory that law enforcement knew the phone was the applicant’s was not deficient and would not have by itself been sufficient reason for the : trial court to deny the petitioner’s motion to suppress? 4. Ifa police officer intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth makes a false statement in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant, is it permissible that the search warrant issue notwithstanding that other statements in that same affidavit standing alone may establish probable cause for the warrant to issue? Question(s) Presented [continued] 5. Did the 8" District Court of Appeals err when it let stand the trial court’s overruling of the appellant’s Motion to Suppress where Cleveland Police officers knowingly misidentified the applicant’s cellphone as Jose Rivera’s in a warrant affidavit related to a burglary investigation 6 months later and then used the evidence obtained from that cellphone to link the applicant to the completely unrelated case for the pandering, which the FBI, a completely different police agency, had already been independently investigating during that prior 6 months and which the Cleveland Police had known nothing about until they had searched the applicant’s phone with the warrant naming Rivera as the phone’s owner?