QUESTION (1): When and how should the courts be bound to the presedent set by the high Court's opinion?

QUESTION (2): Is it time to re-evaluate the loopholes that are permitted by the government to excuse illegal searches?

QUESTION (3): When a Search Warrant stipulates the exact same language from the Search Affidavit presented by the requesting law enforcement officer, how is the a law enforcement officer able to interpret a Search Warrant as being defective when it is precisely what they requested?

QUESTION (4): How is a Judge and/or a Magistrate held to the same legal standards of responsibility in interpreting a Search Warrant as Law Enforcement?

QUESTION (5): If ignorance of the law not an excuse when an individual breaks the law, why is the Government allowed to utilize ignorance as an excuse when ignoring the Constitution?

QUESTION (6): Why are the State Constitutional Protections also available to defendants against Unconstitutional General Warants (especially from State and Local Law Enforcement Agents)?

QUESTION (7): How may a person protect themselves from a Magistrate acting as a 'Rubber Stamp' for law enforcement when there is limited to no records when a Magistrate has denied any previous applications?

QUESTION (8): May we please articulate what constitutes 'Exigent Circumstances' now in the Digital Age of computers and cell phones?

QUESTION (9): What qualifications should a Magistrate hold in being able to interpret what is Constitutional when evaluating a Search Affidavit befoie granting a Search Warrant?

QUESTION (10): Is it time to re-evaluate and overrule the 1984 split decision of. [Leon]?

QUESTION (11): Why has the Government been giving the ability to utilize the excuse of ignorance when it conducts itself illegally/unconstitutionally?

QUESTION (12): What are the consequences for the Government that ignore and/or break the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution?

When and how should the courts be bound to the precedent set by the high Court's opinion?