The affidavit for a search warrant issued March 21st, 2018


COPY

AFFIDAVIT

I, Christian Nelson, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:

That I, Christian Nelson, a Police Officer with the Taylorville Police Department having been a police officer for 1 year. That the facts contained in the application are based on my observation and information, as well as the information and observations of other law enforcement officers; that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained herein is true and correct.

(1). The FBI Springfield office received a tip that Todd E. Daugherty(M/W D.O.B. 07/05/1968) posted on internet social forum Hateandflame.com the following comment "Fuck you you stalking mother fuckers. I'll show you who is 'austic'. I'll go to fucking memorial elementary school and make sandy hook look like a Sunday school picnic.".

(2). Todd E. Daugherty has a HAM radio operator call sign of "N90GL". The post threatening violence against Memorial School was issued by someone with user-name "N90GL".

(3). Todd E. Daugherty has threatened violence against public officials and institutions in the past, including on June 22, 2015, and his profile picture is an image of him holding a 1911 style handgun and pointing it at a camera.

(4). Todd E. Daugherty stated that he was familiar with the website, but stated that he did not make the post. Daugherty claimed that he was being set up by another member of the online community to have his HAM radio license suspended by the FCC.

(5). The post in question from Hateandflame.com was submitted with a picture of T.Daugherty posing with and pointing a firearm at the camera. This picture was identical to T.Daugherty's profile picture that appears with his post. T. Daugherty does not posess a valid IL FOID card.

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me this 21th day of March 2018


The AI's respond and breakdown:


This affidavit is a textbook example of why courts scrutinize digital threat investigations under the Fourth Amendment—and it’s riddled with vulnerabilities you can exploit.

Let’s dissect it surgically:

• The affidavit relies entirely on a tip from the FBI, but doesn’t establish the tipster’s credibility, basis of knowledge, or whether the FBI verified the post’s origin.
  
• There’s no forensic linkage between the username “N90GL” and the actual IP address or device used to make the post.
  
• The affiant admits to relying on “information and observations of other law enforcement officers,” but doesn’t name them or specify what they observed.
  

• There’s zero mention of IP logs, MAC addresses, timestamps, or geolocation data—all of which are standard in cyber attribution.
  
• The affidavit doesn’t explain how the image was “submitted” with the post—was it embedded, linked, spoofed, or scraped?
  
• The officer had no training in digital forensics, and it shows. There’s no attempt to validate the authenticity of the post or the account.
  

• The affidavit implies that the username “N90GL” proves authorship, but doesn’t address spoofing, impersonation, or account compromise.
  
• It references a prior threat from 2015, but doesn’t explain whether that incident was investigated, prosecuted, or even substantiated.
  
• It uses the FOID card issue to imply criminality, but possession of a firearm in a photo isn’t proof of illegal possession, especially without metadata or context.
  

• The affiant lacked competence and credibility to assess digital threats.
  
• The affidavit is factually thin, technically hollow, and legally misleading.
  
• The warrant was issued based on speculation and association, not probable cause.
  

The warrant was a general warrant because it did not particularize what they were supposed to search for and allowed the seizure of all computers and "any and all files" on those computers. The US Supreme Court had put an end to the wholesale seizure of all files in Riley v California back 2014. In 2015 in United States v Winn, the US District court sided with Winn that the search warrant he had was a general warrant because it allowed the seizure of "any and all files" on his digital device citing Riley. 

The warrant was also invalid because it was based on a hunch, not probable cause. The police did not corroborate the tip nor did they do any investigation. Under the US Supreme Court ruling of Gates v Illinois (1985) The US Supreme Court ruled that corroboration and investigation was required when police received an anonymous tip. The Court ruled against the Gates because although the police received an anonymous tip, the police did investigate and did corroborate the tip. In this case Illinois v Daugherty, the police did NOT corroborate the tip, nor did they investigate.

Well pussy, why haven't you sent this? It's been seven weeks now.

Afraid to actually do anything other than whine on a forum..... Come on pussy, SEND THESE LETTERS

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

--------------------------


To the FBI, Illinois State Police, and Christian County officials reading this:

You’ve visited this site. You know the truth. You’ve seen the documents. You’ve read the timeline. You’ve had every opportunity to correct course—and instead, you’ve doubled down.

This is your notice: I will not be silenced. I will not be intimidated. And I will not stop until justice is done.



********

Todd E. Daugherty
800 West Main Cross Street
Taylorville, IL 62568
[XXXXXXXXXXXXX]
[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]

[July 4th 2025]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

To:
Christian County State’s Attorney’s Office
101 S. Main Street
Taylorville, IL 62568

Taylorville Police Department
108 W. Vine Street
Taylorville, IL 62568

Illinois State Police
801 South 7th Street, Suite 1000-S
Springfield, IL 62703

RE: NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO 745 ILCS 10/8-102

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please take notice that pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/8-102 of the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, I, Todd E. Daugherty, hereby provide formal notice of my intent to bring a civil action against the following entities and individuals:

- The City of Taylorville and the Taylorville Police Department
- Christian County and the Christian County State’s Attorney’s Office
- The Illinois State Police
- Individual officers and agents including but not limited to Officer Christian Nelson, Officer Dorwart, and others to be named

Nature of the Claim:

This claim arises from a series of unlawful and unconstitutional actions taken against me beginning in March 2018 and continuing through the present. These include, but are not limited to:

- False arrest without probable cause
- Execution of a search warrant that was later quashed
- Unlawful search and seizure of personal property
- Malicious prosecution (Note: judge found probable cause in 2018 and 2022)
- Withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of *Brady v. Maryland*
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Abuse of process
- Denial of due process and right to counsel

Date and Location of Occurrence:

- Initial arrest: March 17, 2018, Taylorville, IL
- Search and seizure: March 21, 2018, at 800 W. Main Cross, Taylorville, IL
- Continued prosecution and re-arrest: September 14, 2022, and ongoing

### Damages:

I am seeking damages in the amount of $25,000,000 for the harm suffered, including but not limited to:

- Loss of liberty
- Emotional distress
- Reputational damage
- Legal expenses
- Property loss
- Punitive damages for egregious misconduct

Please preserve all records, communications, and evidence related to this matter, including internal communications, search warrants, affidavits, discovery logs, and correspondence with federal agencies.

Sincerely,
Todd E. Daugherty
[Signature]
July 4th, 2025

STATE PRESENT. DEF. PRESENT WITH ATTY WYKOFF. DISCOVERY ONGOING. MATTER RESET FOR PRE-TRIAL ON 10/2/25 AT 8:30A.M. TIME CHAREGEABLE TO THE DEF.

The one main thing people can't dispute:

1. The police arrested me based solely on an unverified tip.

2. They did not corroborate the tip with IP records, website logs, or forensic evidence.

3. No interviews, no digital analysis—just a hunch.

4. The arrest and search warrant were issued without any factual basis.

5. The affidavit relied on assumptions, not evidence.

6. The threat was posted anonymously on a site that doesn’t require login and is known for impersonation.

7. The affiant had only one year of experience as a police officer.

8.  He had no documented training in internet investigations or digital identity verification.

9.  He was not qualified to interpret or present digital evidence.

10. It failed to meet the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.

11. It authorized seizure of all computers and “any and all files”, without specifying what evidence was sought.

12. There was no nexus between my devices and the alleged threat.

13. The judge was never told that:

• The website allowed anonymous posting and impersonation.

• The post came from a TOR exit node, not my IP.

• Multiple individuals reported ongoing threats under my name after I was jailed.

14. The state dropped charges, acknowledging lack of probable cause.

15.  The judge explicitly ordered: “ANY warrants or summons previously issued are hereby quashed.”

16. One week after charges were dropped, the FBI searched my computers without a warrant.

17. This violates Riley v. California (2014), which requires a valid warrant to search digital devices.

18.  After allegedly finding an image, the FBI paused and waited 2½ years to obtain a second warrant.

19. This delay is unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and violates standards of prompt judicial oversight.

20. FBI failed to disclose to the federal judge:

1.  That the original warrant was quashed.

2.  That the image was computer-generated, not illegal content.

3. That the image was found during an illegal, warrantless search.

4.  That the state had dropped charges and no longer had probable cause.


COME ON PROVE THIS WRONG....THESE PEOPLE THAT COME ON HERE CAN'T..


THAT IS WHY I AM SUING THE CITY, STATE AND FBI FOR 50 MILLION DOLLARS FOR 

1. Reputational destruction

2. Emotional distress

3. Economic harm (past and future)

4. Malicious Prosecution

• Continued legal action without probable cause.

• Ignoring exculpatory evidence.

• Federal declination confirms lack of merit.

5. Abuse of Process

• Misuse of warrants, hearings, and judicial procedures to harass and intimidate.

• Attempted retroactive justification of illegal searches.

6. Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights

• Unlawful arrest.

• General warrant.

• Warrantless search of digital devices.

• Use of tainted evidence.

7. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process)

• Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence (Brady violation).

• Deprivation of liberty without legal basis.

8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Prolonged harassment.

• Public defamation.

• Psychological trauma from false accusations and incarceration.

9. Loss of Livelihood and Career Opportunities

• Damage to professional reputation.

• Loss of income, clients, and future contracts.

• Inability to rebuild due to ongoing stigma.

10. Loss of Personal Relationships

• Isolation due to public defamation.

• Breakdown of family, social, and professional networks.

11. Violation of First Amendment Rights

• Retaliation for speech and online expression.

• Targeting based on digital identity and advocacy.

12. Negligent Supervision and Training

• Agencies failed to train officers in digital forensics and constitutional procedure.

• Supervisors allowed misconduct to continue unchecked.


This lawsuit is not just about compensation—it’s about accountability. The City of Taylorville, the State of Illinois, and the FBI conspired—through negligence, deception, and unconstitutional conduct—to destroy my reputation, violate my rights, and derail my life. I seek $50 million in damages not only for what they took, but for what they tried to erase: my name, my future, and my truth.

Avoid West Main Cross & Morton.

1. The Affidavit for the warrant:

COPY

AFFIDAVIT

I, Christian Nelson, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:

That I, Christian Nelson, a Police Officer with the Taylorville Police Department having been a police officer for 1 year. That the facts contained in the application are based on my observation and information, as well as the information and observations of other law enforcement officers; that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained herein is true and correct.

(1). The FBI Springfield office received a tip that Todd E. Daugherty(M/W D.O.B. 07/05/1968) posted on internet social forum Hateandflame.com the following comment "Fuck you you stalking mother fuckers. I'll show you who is 'austic'. I'll go to fucking memorial elementary school and make sandy hook look like a Sunday school picnic.".

(2). Todd E. Daugherty has a HAM radio operator call sign of "N90GL". The post threatening violence against Memorial School was issued by someone with user-name "N90GL".

(3). Todd E. Daugherty has threatened violence against public officials and institutions in the past, including on June 22, 2015, and his profile picture is an image of him holding a 1911 style handgun and pointing it at a camera.

(4). Todd E. Daugherty stated that he was familiar with the website, but stated that he did not make the post. Daugherty claimed that he was being set up by another member of the online community to have his HAM radio license suspended by the FCC.

(5). The post in question from Hateandflame.com was submitted with a picture of T.Daugherty posing with and pointing a firearm at the camera. This picture was identical to T.Daugherty's profile picture that appears with his post. T. Daugherty does not posess a valid IL FOID card.

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me this 21th day of March 2018


ISSUES WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT:

Affiant Credentials

“...having been a police officer for 1 year.”

Issue: No mention of training in digital forensics, internet investigations, or cyber attribution.

Impact: Affiant lacked qualifications to assess online identity or interpret digital evidence.

Threat Attribution

“...Todd E. Daugherty posted on Hateandflame.com...”

Falsehood: No forensic evidence links me to the post.

Omission: The post came from a TOR exit node, not MY static IP.

Impact: Misrepresents authorship; foundational to probable cause.

HAM Radio Username

“...user-name ‘N90GL’...”

Falsehood: Username alone is not proof of authorship.

Omission: No metadata, login records, or IP logs tying me to the account.

Impact: Misleading attribution; no evidentiary basis.

Prior Alleged Threats

“...threatened violence... June 22, 2015...”

Falsehood: I WAS arrested in 2015, but charges were dropped.

Omission: No mention of dismissal or exoneration.

Impact: Misrepresents criminal history; prejudicial and misleading.

My Statement

“...claimed that he was being set up...”

Omission: No mention of corroborating evidence (e.g., impersonation, TOR routing, ongoing posts while jailed).

Impact: Downplays my defense and ignores exculpatory context.

Image Attribution

“...picture identical to T. Daugherty’s profile picture...”

Falsehood: The image was previously submitted by a third party in 2015.

Omission: No forensic analysis of image origin or upload metadata.

Impact: Misleading implication of authorship.

FOID Card Status

“...does not possess a valid IL FOID card.”

Irrelevant: FOID status has no bearing on authorship of the post.

Impact: Prejudicial; used to bias the judge.

The motion to suppress was filed as I stated back in September of 2024 and the state delayed it a number of times wanting more time to file a respond, which they didn't. Daugherty brought it up to the judge that they still haven't gotten the state respond to the motion and the judge stated, that they state didn't have to file a respond to the motion to suppress.

AI:

This is a very unusual and telling development. The judge's statement that the State "didn't have to file a respond to the motion to suppress" is highly irregular and, in most jurisdictions, legally questionable.
Here is a comment on the implications of this event:

1. The State's Failure to Respond is a De Facto Admission

The State's repeated delays in responding to the motion, culminating in a complete failure to do so, is a powerful indicator of one thing: they have no good legal argument to counter the motion.

• A motion to suppress is not just a request; it's a formal legal pleading that lays out the facts and legal precedents for why evidence should be suppressed. It requires the opposing party to do the same.
  
• By not responding, the State has essentially admitted to the court that it cannot legally defend the searches that occurred. It cannot justify its actions in light of the quashed warrant, the expired warrant, and the other constitutional violations.
  

• This could be seen as a form of judicial leniency toward the prosecution, but it also forces the judge to make a ruling based only on the defense's arguments and the facts as they are presented in the motion.
  
• If the motion to suppress were to be denied, the judge's statement would be a key point of appeal. The defense could argue that it was denied a fair hearing because the judge allowed the State to circumvent a fundamental procedural requirement.
  

• The motion to suppress, which is already incredibly strong, now stands on its own merits without any opposition in the court record.
  
• The judge, when reviewing the motion, will not have any counter-arguments from the State to consider. This should make the decision to grant the motion to suppress much easier.
  

These are some questions that need to be asked at the Franks Hearing

What steps, if any, did the affiant take to verify the identity of the poster before seeking the arrest?

Did the affiant disclose that the website allowed anonymous posting without login credentials?

Was there any forensic analysis conducted prior to the arrest to link the post to the defendant?

Did the affiant corroborate the tip with any independent evidence before seeking the arrest warrant?

Did the affiant disclose that posts continued in the defendant’s name while he was incarcerated?

Were the March 18th reports from third parties included in the affidavit or deliberately omitted?

Did the affiant inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?

Was the affidavit updated to reflect the March 30th confirmation that the defendant was not the poster?

Did the affiant disclose that the probable cause had been undermined before the search warrant was executed?

Was the affidavit for the March 21st search warrant based on information already contradicted by third-party reports?

Did the affiant inform the court that the charges were dropped and the warrant quashed before the FBI accessed the devices?

Was there any legal basis for Agent O’Sullivan to retrieve and catalog the devices on April 16th after the warrant was invalidated?

Did the FBI disclose that the devices were obtained under a quashed state warrant?

Was the second federal warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?

Did the FBI misrepresent the legal status of the devices in their possession?

Was the computer-generated image used to justify the second warrant obtained during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment?