Whether considerations of stare decisis impact the constitutional protections against warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment's Particularity Clause

What weight is due to considerations of stare decisis in evaluating the constitutional rights or protections against warrantless or unconstitutional searches and seizures, as are given to U.S. Citizens by the Particularity Clause within the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Whether an indictment that was the fruits of an illegal search and seizure without a lawful warrant was “unreasonable ”; and Whether the State of Colorado can rule that a 7 month constitutionally deficient warrant or pastdue People ’s Exhibit Four is lawful? Whether the indictment is therefore unlawful, as there was no legal warrant to justify the searches conducted? Whether the “fruits ” of the tainted tree prohibit inadmissible evidence to be used to seek a conviction as such searches violate the Fourth Amendment? Whether a police detective can disregard the court orders or parameters of a 44.1 warrant when that warrant explicitly stated in sub court order #7: “No search of Chayce Aaron Anderson may be made, except a protective search for weapons, ” {verbatim) and when the 44.1 rule itself explicitly prohibits searches under 44.1. Since 44.1 states explicitly that there must be two warrants for a search, a 44.1 and a separate search warrant having been issued prior to the search before a search is conducted; does the police detectives search become unconstitutional when warrant is breached? Whether it was unconstitutional to conduct a warrantless search, seize a white I-phone 6, and hook up four different police software to the phone, file a police complaint, and then file for a search warrant that is nearly 7 months constitutionally delinquent? Specifically; the search warrant wasn ’t issued till the day after the serving of the police complaint. Whether Defendant Anderson received his adversarial function under the right to counsel and particularly effective counsel when a week prior to trial, counsel claimed inter alia, or that his attorney-client privilege had been breached? Whether the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to meet the constitutional standard of elements of offense having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When considering intent is a core required element failed to be proved when Defendant Anderson ’s intoxication level was stated by an expert as coma-tose, near death, of .45 to .48 B.A.C.; expert testimony that was deliberately withheld from the eyes of the jury? Whether if the elements had not been constitutionally reached; justifying a judicial acquittal verdict on several counts? Whether the defendant was constitutionally entitled to an acquittal judgment by the trial judge? Whether the State of Colorado can reach “Intent ” required in the Crimin al Culpable Mental state required in charged counts when a Defendant is documented by toxicology reports as having a “Coma ” level intoxication of .45 to .48; amounting to unconsciousness and near death symptoms?I. II. III. IV. V. VI. 8 United States Supreme Court Chayce A. Anderson Vs. State of Colorado