(1) WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ERRED WHEN IT "DENIED" PETITIONER'S "REQUEST FOR REVIEW" ON THE SUMMARY DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION AND REQUEST FOR STAY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 4th APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 3, WITHOUT DECIDING THE MERITS.

(2) DID THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL, DECIDE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO PETITIONER'S PREJUDICE?

(3) DO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY PETITIONER TO THE LOWER STATE COURTS IN THIS CASE, PRECISELY COINCIDE WITH THIS COURT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION IN RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA?

(4) ARE THE ISSUES PRESENTED OF SIGNIFICANT LEGAL IMPACT AND OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE TO THE UNIFORMITY OF DECISIONS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA AND SCHLOSSBERG VS. SOLESBEE IN REGARDS TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CELLPHONES AND DIGITAL DATA?

(5) SHOULD THE STATE COURT MAKE RULINGS CONTRARY TO THE HOLDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT AND BINDING FEDERAL PRECEDENT?

(6) IS DIGITAL DATA TAKEN FROM PETITIONER'S CELLPHONE SUBJECT TO 4th AMENDMENT PROTECTION IN THAT A WARRANT IS REQUIRED NOT ONLY BY PETITIONER'S RIGHTS BUT THE 4th AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF OTHER PERSONS WHOSE INFORMATION WAS TAKEN FROM PHONE?

(7) IS A WARRANT REQUIRED TO SEARCH OR EXTRACT DIGITAL DATA FROM A PERSON'S CELLPHONE WHERE NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS ANNOUNCED IN "RILEY" TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT ARE PRESENT REGARDLESS OF WHERE PETITIONER IS AT THE TIME OF SEIZURE?

(8) SHOULD THE RESPONDENTS IN THIS CASE BE ALLOWED TO USE DIGITAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM PETITIONER'S CELLPHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT NOR "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" OF ANY KIND, AGAINST PETITIONER AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM IN THE UPCOMING TRIAL IN THIS CAPITAL CASE, WHEN THAT DIGITAL DATA IS THE SOLE BASIS OF RESPONDENT'S CASE AGAINST PETITIONER AND NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS ANNOUNCED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT IN ITS PRECEDENT SETTING DECISION IN RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA (2014) WERE PRESENT?

(9) DO CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 4576 (E), 1546.1 (C)(8) AND THE HOLDINGS OF THIS HIGH COURT IN RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA REQUIRE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRST PROCURE A WARRANT BEFORE SEARCHING OR EXTRACTING DIGITAL DATA FROM PETITIONER'S PHONE AND THEN USE THE EXTRACTED DATA TO FRAME A COMPLAINT AND CHARGE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE?

(10) SHOULD THE DIGITAL DATA TAKEN FROM PETITIONER'S PHONE BE SUPPRESSED PURSUANT CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 1538.5 RELYING ON THIS HONORABLE COURT'S HOLDINGS IN RILEY VS. CALIFORNIA (2014) AND CALIFORNIA'S OWN STATE PENAL CODE THAT ALIGN EXACTLY WITH THAT HOLDING IN 54576(E) AND §1546.1 (C)(8),

Whether the California Supreme Court erred when it denied petitioners' request for review on the summary denial of petitioners' writ of mandate and prohibition, and request for stay with the Court of Appeal, Appellate Division 3 without deciding the merits