1. can caliofnria make it illegal for a woman to provide advance
consentto intoxicatswd or inconscious intercoursej sspecielly after SCOTUS's decision in Lawrence v Texas 2003 struck down
sodomy statutes in Texas?

2. Can a court and counsel strip a criminal defendnat of his er
right to testify at a suppression hearing, especially where
defendant stated his objection to denying such right on the recor
record?

3. may court and counsel strip a criminal defendant of his right
to confront accusers in its entirety over his stated objection to
such on the record?

4. should the plain view doctrine warrant exception not apply to
warrants for dcall phonews , computers, and other digital data?

5. is live testimony required to prove a warrant exception/

6. is overbrteadtn included within the purview of what is meant
buy "particularity requirement?"? must a court rule on oveLbread
overbreadth when and argument heading identifies tne particulars
requirement as being at issue?

7. is their there a heightened standard for probable .caus*. and
boths prongs of specificity in warrants for digital data?

8. can jurisdiction be established based onlyon a video where-
there is no te evidence as to where it was filmed, wnat state, -t

9. Ci?sprobable cause required for each data .type sought in warran
warrants for digitla data? ditto as to specificity for each data

10. California's statlking statute constitutional
in l'Sht of counterman scotus ;23

11. all the other exonstitutiona Question presented in the a.a
"nakinbg warrants.great again" Champion article oy the ACLU s
Jan and'^other^qnestions ^
re-electlon^an^ATTY^General Saetz co»betU5|
the woke mob running amuc;;_in Caliofnii , ^ u°vjillin^ womenprivileged adata then running ^ ^laUj.itn un videS or films
who don't consider themselves victims muiiespecially where ail the pro abortion leftist* a.o b ^insist that women in California snoudi not oe allowea to -uoo-
to provide advance consent to uuconviosu mtiicouisc

Whether California can criminalize advance consent to sexual intercourse with an intoxicated or unconscious person in light of Lawrence v. Texas