Yes — that language reads like what courts often call a general warrant, because it doesn’t meaningfully limit the scope of the search or seizure to particular evidence tied to a specific crime.
Here’s why:

1. Overbroad “Any and All” Language
   • The “TO BE SEIZED” section repeatedly says “any and all computers”, “any and all magnetic or optical media”, and “any and all information and data stored”.
     
   • Courts have repeatedly criticized this as too broad, because it authorizes seizing essentially everything in the home that could store data, regardless of whether it is connected to the alleged offense.
     
2. Insufficient Particularity
   • The Fourth Amendment (and Illinois Constitution, Art. I § 6) requires the warrant to describe items to be seized with enough detail so officers can reasonably identify them without leaving it to their discretion.
     
   • Here, there’s some narrowing (“pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence…”) — but it’s buried inside a much broader list that authorizes taking all data, all software, and even all ownership records.
     
   • In practice, this means the officers could seize far more than what’s tied to the specific suspected offense.
     
3. Catch-All Language at the End
   • The final parts (“including but not limited to…”) expand the scope back out again, undermining the limited parts earlier.
     
   • This “including but not limited to” phrasing is a red flag for overbreadth.
     
4. Digital Search Issues
   • Courts treat computer warrants carefully because hard drives hold vast personal information. Warrants that authorize seizing and searching any computer/media in a home, without temporal or content-based limits, are often struck down or evidence suppressed.
     

The issue is that people think this case is "cut and dry," but that's far from the truth.

1. A threat was made against a school.

2. The next day, I was arrested without the police investigating or corroborating the tip.

3. A day later, individuals informed the police, FBI, and state attorney that more posts, including threats, were being made on the same website—which was impossible since I was in jail.

4. The state obtained a warrant to search my house and seize every computer, making it a General Warrant.

5. A week later, they got records from the website showing I didn't make the threat or access the site. The attorney admitted this in an affidavit, proving no probable cause.

6. Despite knowing they lacked probable cause, the police contacted the FBI to search the computers, which the FBI picked up a week later.

7. On April 16th, the charges were dropped, and the warrant was quashed.

8. A week later, the FBI searched the computers without a warrant, violating the law (Riley v California 2014, United States v Winn 2015).

9. During this search, they found a computer-generated image and paused to get a second warrant.

10. Two years later, they obtained a second warrant, claiming the computers were under a valid state warrant.

11. They searched the devices and passed the information to the U.S. Assistant Attorney, who declined to prosecute. The FBI returned the case to the state.

12. In 2022, the state arrested me again based on that invalid search warrant.

SO:

1. The warrant was a general warrant.

2. They lacked probable cause from the start.

3. The quashed warrant made subsequent

mark@wykofflaw.com

The Complete Works of Todd E. Doherty

Enjoy

Some dumbass is pretending to be me on here

https://f5bbs.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=100900

The ONLY place I post is here. I do not post there.

The timeline that was summitted:

A threat was made on March 16, 2018, on a website that doesn't require a login and people pretending to be people is the status quo.

The next day March 17th the police arrested me without an investigation and with corroborating the tip. I was in jail for a month on a 250,000-dollar bond

On March 18th two individuals got a hold of the police, FBI and State Attorney to notify them that more post was being made in my name while I was still in jail.

On March 19th The police got a warrant to my internet service provider to get my mac address and my IP

On March 21, 2018, the police got a search warrant to seize all the computers in my house.

On March 30th The police sent a warrant to Hate and Flame the website the threat was posted on, which confirmed that I didn’t make the post, in fact I wasn’t on that site at all.

By this time, the police and state knew they no longer had probable cause

April 4th the police hand the computers over to the FBI and they are put in storage

April 16th the charges were dropped, and the search warrant was quashed. That same day Agent O’Sullivan got the devices out of storage to catalog them

April 23rd, 2018, he begins going through them on the invalid state warrant and found a computer-generated image and stopped the search to get a second warrant.

March 2, 2020, The FBI got their second warrant claiming they were in legal possession under a state search warrant

ChatGPT 5 response:

This timeline paints a devastating picture for the state — not just on probable cause, but on illegality of possession, chain of custody, and bad faith.
Let’s break down what jumps out:

1. Arrest without investigation
March 17, 2018: Arrested before any technical verification.
Arrest relied solely on a forum post from a site where impersonation was common, without IP records, MAC address info, or other corroboration.
Courts have struck down such arrests when no reasonable officer could think probable cause existed without basic verification.

2. Exculpatory evidence within 48 hours
March 18, 2018: Two witnesses told police, FBI, and State’s Attorney that more posts in your name were being made while you were in jail — making it impossible you were responsible.
This is direct exculpatory evidence that should have halted the investigation against you or at least stopped further searches.
Continuing to pursue you after that moves from negligence into reckless disregard for the truth (Franks territory).

3. Warrant sequencing shows lack of nexus
March 19: Only then did they request ISP info.
March 21: Got warrant to seize all computers in your home before they got site records.
March 30: Finally subpoenaed the site and learned you weren’t on it — this destroys probable cause before the computers were searched.

4. Knowledge of no probable cause before search
As of March 30, they knew you were not on the site and your IP/MAC didn’t match the threat.
Continuing to hold or search your property after that point is unconstitutional — any search becomes fruit of the poisonous tree.

5. Warrant quashed — but they still searched
April 16, 2018: Charges dropped and state search warrant quashed.
Same day, FBI agent takes devices out of storage and starts cataloging them.
April 23, 2018: Begins search under the quashed warrant, finds alleged “computer-generated image,” stops, and then seeks a second warrant.
This is a blatant warrant violation — once the warrant is quashed, there is no legal authority to examine the devices.

6. FBI’s second warrant tainted
March 2, 2020: FBI gets a second warrant claiming legal possession under the invalid state warrant.
That’s a false premise — legal possession ended when the warrant was quashed and the charges dropped.
Under Murray v. United States (487 U.S. 533 (1988)), if the later warrant is based on information or possession obtained unlawfully, it’s tainted and must be suppressed.

7. Constitutional violations in play
Fourth Amendment – Lack of probable cause: Arrest and first warrant issued without verified facts.
Fourth Amendment – General warrant problem: Seizure of “any and all” devices/data without limiting to alleged threat.
Fourth Amendment – Continued retention/search after probable cause collapsed: Post–March 30 and post–April 16 activity unconstitutional.
Franks violation: Omissions in affidavit about not having site/IP confirmation yet, and ignoring the posts made while you were in custody.
Brady violation: Withholding March 30 exculpatory records until summer 2024.
Fruit of the poisonous tree: FBI’s 2020 warrant built entirely on unlawful possession/search of devices.

If I were mapping this out for a motion, I’d show three “poison points” where everything after becomes suppressible:
March 17–21: Arrest and warrant without any verified link to your devices.
March 30: Probable cause destroyed by site records — continued retention illegal.
April 16: Warrant quashed — possession and search became unconstitutional.

I AM SUING THE CITY POLICE, THE STATE, AND FBI FOR 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!

This is from another website that I do not post on, but I happened to stubble on it.

Quote:Here is what Todd had to say about that:


N9OGL is the call Ham sign for Todd Daugherty. Todd posted some messages on a message board called Nimbusters, after it was shut down both Mark Price aka MickeyTT and Peter Goodman aka NewsGuy continued harassments of N9OGL. Mark Price repeatedly threatened to "rape" N9OGL at gun point. N9OGL even came on NewsGuy's radio show on Blogtalk Radio trying to stop the harassment, to no avail.

Everything came to a head in 2018 when Mark Price made a post in Todd Daugherty's name threatening to shoot up a school and to make Sandy Hook look like a picnic. Peter Goodman then reported the post to the FBI (he knew it was bogus). N9OGL was thrown in jail and his computer seized (which he never got back). He spent 32 days in jail before the police dismissed the charges.

https://friendsofn9ogl.blogspot.com/202 … n-you.html

Why would he used a child avatar as his profile pic?  Just posted this on X just to remind the locals.