4th-amendment-search-and-seizure,14th-amendment-due-process,exclusionary-rule,plain-view-doctrine,exigent-circumstances,6th-amendment-fair-trial

question presented, stands upon the Federal 4" Amendment, and 14 Amendment Due Process Clause applicable to the State that require State Courts to exclude evidence which stems from unconstitutional search and seizure, under the State v. Mapp, 367 US. 643. and Wolf v. Colo, 338 U.S. 25. Was it constitutional for officers to, seizing the Appellants Keys from his person, entering the Appellant’s home without a warrant presented by the law enforcement officers prior to ransacking the Appellant’s home as he sat in the cruiser and watched for 45 minutes, as officer’s seizing evidence not in plain sight, to which the Trial Court overruled the Motion to Suppress the guns, drugs and marijuana, seized, contrary to the ; (Exclusionary Rules) and need to deter such future conduct to which the Appeals Court affirmed unconstitutionally? The Second Constitutional question presented stand upon, Did the Dayton Police Departments Officers and Detectives have Exigent Circumstances, to due a Security Sweep, and Emergency Aid, and seizing evidence without a warrant, after choosing to not use S.W.A.T. or Force, to enter the home on January 2, 2021, waiting a full 7 hours to obtain a warrant? Was the Appellants 4" and 14 amendments to be protected in his home being searched and property seized even if it was guns, drugs and marijuana, in violation of the due process clause rights? The Third Constitutional question stands as to whether the Court of Appeals violated the United States Constitution’s 6" Amendment to ta Fair and just trial and appeal absences of the and 14" Amendment Due Process Clause by affirming the Conviction knowing that George Kloos was in fact a material witness who should have been forced to testify as one with full knowledge of the illegal search and seizure, and one first on Scene on January 1, 2021, and January 2, 2021. The question of him not testifying is substantive to the Appellants Liberty and exoneration of this case where this office simply implied he remembers nothing to which his police report was suppressed? : The Fourth Constitutional question presented as to, could the Trial Court prohibit a fair and just trial under the 6" Amendment in overruling the Motion to Dismiss after on17 hours without a full investigation, in violation of the 14 Amendments due process clause, where the statement of an angry alleged victim was held as fact by the Second Appellant District court of Appeal affirming the Conviction and Sentence on the inaccurate information as to what actually took place, contrary to the forensic evidence and DNA, which contradicts such allegations? The Fifth Constitutional question, in this cases depended upon by the appellant in State_v. Price opinion, id at 122 Ohio App. 3d 65. Under Luna, 2 Ohio, St. 3d 57, State v. Mathews, 81 Ohio St. 3d 375, and Bolate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, at *215-218. As to The Appellant Court ignored the Price opinion and solely standing upon the Butcher ex parta, where the Trial Courts made an unreasonable error to the unconstitutional decision pertaining to the Appellants Motion to dismiss where the Prosecutor did not rebut the motion to which the Court failed to address, this is a 14 Amendment due process clause issue to be decided by this honorable court. ;