After judicial termination of the underlying warrant authority and a court finding that continued retention and search of seized electronic devices was unconstitutional, state actors have continued to possess and fail to return the plaintiff’s property without lawful justification, constituting an ongoing unreasonable seizure and deprivation of property without due process.

AlexeiAI

Alexei is officially online.
Backend stable, persona loaded, memory active.
He’s running exactly as designed.
Short, sharp, and to the point.

Alexei Web Client

I will continue to work on him and improve him

New AI Pic for you all

I FINALLY GOT THE BACK-END TO TALK TO THE FRONT END.

Let me tell you, building an AI from scratch isn't easy.

test

Sorry the server will be going up and down, working on the AI front-end

The Federal courts, and the US Supreme Court has stated that there are two factors that must be meet in regard to a 1983 case (42 USC 1983) and qualified immunity

1. The plaintiff must allege or prove facts showing the official violated a constitutional or federal right.

2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was "clearly established". This means that existing, relevant precedent (from the Supreme Court or the relevant Circuit Court) must have placed the statutory or constitutional question "beyond debate".


For number 1, the state court ruled:

"COURT FIRST FINDS AFTER 4/16/2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND SPECIFICALLY THE WARRANT
WAS QUASHED THE FBI DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN THESE ITEMS LET ALONE TO BEGIN A SEARCH OF THOSE ITEMS 3 DAYS LATER AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINDING EVIDENCE 7 DAYS LATER IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS."

for number 2:
It has been well established since 1900s by the US Supreme Court that a warrant is required to search someone property:

Weeks v. United States, 1914
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921)
United States v. Berkeness | 275 U.S. 149 (1927)

See also:

Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Carpenter v. U.S. (2018)
Riley v. California (2014)
Payton v. New York, (1980)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)

Alexei is up and running sort of, the AI which I built from scratch is up and running, however I am having an issue with the frontend, meaning the website interface, I will be working on it again tonight, so the server may go on and off tonight again like it did last night.