Does Petitioner have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Utah's Implied Consent Statute?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . There comes a point in time in the development of a State that its actors are compelled to ‘ evaluate its integrity in relation to both, its Constitution and the United States Constitution. For a State such as Utah, however youthful, anomalies of our American character, when revealed, are inexcusable — and all the more so where these deviations have almost criminally become the norm. ' This criminal case presents one such anomaly compelling this Honorable Court’s review in its Supreme authority as a State actor for the grave purpose of aligning Utah’s values — and its own : with those robustly more American. : : Now, before this Honorable Court, stands an urgent and pressing opportunity to correct an | improper holding of its lower courts and its own progeny. That opportunity is not merely a | window, it is a doorway to duty. I, Amanda Reynolds, humbly pray that this Honorable Court grant certiorari to answer the questions presented herein below in the interests of justice and in favor of this nation’s ever-striving perfection: ; RECEIVED | a MAY 3.0 2024 | QUBREWe COREE / “ye A. CONSTITUTIONALITY 1. Does Petitioner have standing under Utah’s public interest doctrine and as . excepted under the mootness doctrine upon the grounds that this issue is one capable of recurring yet evading review to challenge the constitutionality of Utah’s Implied Consent Statute? 2. Since Petitioner does have standing, is Utah’s Implied Consent Statute unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments? 3. Is the unconstitutionality of Utah’s Implied Consent Statute reconcilable under Birchfield v. North Dakota and simultaneously a warrant for Birchfield’s reversal? B. SUPPRESSION 1. Was Petitioner entitled to suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under the Exclusionary Rule? More specifically, does Utah’s present case law violate federal law, especially Miranda, in holding that a DUI investigation does not become custodial for Miranda purposes at the moment the questioning turns from investigatory to accusatory in nature, thereby warranting suppression? 2. Did the Utah Highway Patrol Trooper’s clear use of coercion and his failure to obtain an express waiver of Miranda mandate suppression of the evidence and dismissal? : 2. Does Utah’s permissive use of a Preliminary Breath Test under the civil Implied Consent Statute to establish probable cause in the criminal investigation violate the Fourth Amendment? : 3. Since Utah’s permissive use of a Preliminary Breath Test to establish probable cause does violate the Fourth Amendment, does the fifteen-minute constant observation rule set forth in Baker v. Washington apply to Preliminary Breath Tests ‘ (since it already applies to Intoxilyzer tests)? 4. Did the West Jordan District Court Order granting suppression of the evidence and dismissing the DUI charge, but otherwise failing to sanction the prosecution violate Defendant’s rights under Brady v. Maryland? 5. Did West Jordan District Court’s refusal to permit a jury trial for the criminal traffic violations violate Defendant’s Seventh Amendment Rights? 6. At what point did the right to counsel impute under federal law and, since Utah courts failed to recognize that right, how does Utah law violate the presently existing federal landscape? ;