Whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to immediately release a suspect from custody when probable cause dissipates due to newly discovered exculpatory evidence

in this case that should be, but have not been, settled by this Court: (1) whether a finding of probable cause without exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless seizure of a person in the home also permits a subsequent immediate warrantless search and seizure of property within the home; (2) whether a finding of probable cause justifying a warrantless seizure of a person is a different question from probable cause at the moment at which a prosecution is initiated by the respondents; when considering the petitioner specifically alleged the malicious prosecution was initiated by the respondents based on the fabricated inculpatory evidence contained within their search/ seizure warrant affidavit; (3) whether the petitioner’s sworn assertions that law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by engaging in a presumptively unreasonable warrantless search and seizure in his room absent probable cause plus exigent circumstances establishes prima facie evidence to defeat the respondents summary judgment motion: (4) whether a probable cause finding justifying an initial warrantless arrest dissipates when law enforcement discovers and/ or deliberately suppresses exculpatory evidence that would cause an objectively reasonable officer to believe that a suspect is innocent; and must the suspect be immediately released from custody (if seized) when probable cause dissipates; (5) whether the court can retroactively apply inadmissible irrelevant and hearsay evidence that was unknown to the respondent movants at the moment that they fabricated evidence within their search/ seizure warrant affidavit, while it patently ignores petitioner’s contradictory evidence including, but not limited to Nevada state court findings that support the petitioner's direct and circumstantial fabrication of evidence claim based on the respondents’ mischaracterizing witness statements and suppressing exculpatory evidence. Specific questions of national importance that this petition will address are: L Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision, blatantly ignoring the nonmovant’s (plaintiffs) theories of prosecution and factual evidence set forth in his affidavits and answers to interrogatories, violated the Supreme Court precedent regarding “the axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgm