+- Todd Daugherty's N9OGL Official Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl)
+-- Forum: General (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Main Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: What will happen on Tuesday (/showthread.php?tid=134)
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-09-2025
(02-08-2025, 09:41 PM)Todd Daugherty Library Wrote:Retard Wrote:It did state " information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials"
And that proves it was not a general warrant. They are allowed to take all your electronic devices for examination in a quarantined environment. In fact, that's the only way it's allowed into evidence. They just can't show up and take a few files and leave the rest....
And your threat against that school was an immanent threat and you lied during your interview to the police..And you admitted you were aware of the threat being made and you said you didn't report it because you didn't trust the police. So they know you visited the website, plus your Twitter history which was full of hateandflame responses.... And you were making threats on Twitter right up to your arrest where they found you hiding the basement when your parents came home.
Like I said, you should have hired a lawyer in 2018, but nope, you know everything!!!!!
YOU need to understand had warrants work and particularities work within the warrant. When the police seek a warrant, they must state probable cause and describe the person or place they wish to search with particularity and the person and thing they wish to seize with particularity. The particularity means "the exact thing" when police search a computer (and YES, they can do it in a controlled environment) they must state what files they are looking for. When the do go to controlled environment, they are only allowed to search for those items. as we started in our motion to suppress
"The Device Warrant, at one point, makes an oblique reference to something resembling the facts in the case when it states, "any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials." However, that clause is in and of itself both overbroad and insufficiently particular. The affidavit did not contain any information establishing threats to public officials or towards schools in general. Had they actually connected Daugherty to that post (which they did not) the only possible thing they could investigate him for was the March 16, 2018, threat "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" posted on hateandflame.com. This is a basic tenant of probable cause and particularity a search for evidence of one crime does not allow a search for evidence of other crimes. United States v. Wey, 2017 WL 257402 at *18 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe they would find information relevant to their investigation in the form of an "internet search" as there were no facts that established any reason to believe an "internet search" was done for public officials or schools. Therefore, this clause (if it could be considered a clause at all) was both overly broad and lacking in particularity. "
The police officer who wrote the warrant (who by the way had only been a cop for 1 year) didn't know how to write an affidavit or a search warrant. as the statement about says Had they actually connected Daugherty to that post (which they did not) In fact they knew I didn't do they had evidence that showed they knew I didn't make the threat. They were withholding evidence even back in 2018. Had they got my ISP information and then the Hate and flame information they would have seen I never posted on there. instead, they got my IP then they got the search warrant, THEN weeks later got a warrant for the records at hate and flame.
The police are allowed to take the computer to search for them, but they must state exactly what they are looking for, they are not allowed to rummage through computers as the federal courts have stated " . The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant describe the items to be seized with particularity. In most cases involving digital devices, the devices themselves are incidental to the true object of the search, which is the information contained on the devices. Thus, a warrant application should describe the files or information sought, not merely the devices, and should do so as specifically as reasonably possible."
They didn't do that they added "information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials" that was an excuse to allow them to rummage through the whole computer. FYI a internet search would of only allowed them to search the web browser history and or links and not rummage through the computer like they did.
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
The Supreme Court put the scope of such a wholesale seizure in perspective by explaining that it “would typically expose the government to far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.” Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2491, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (emphasis in original)
United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919 (S.D. Ill. 2015)
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
Based on the complaint supporting the search warrant, there was probable cause to believe that only two categories of data could possibly be evidence of the crime: photos and videos ( see Doc. 22–2). The complaint did not offer any basis—such as facts learned during the investigation or Detective Lambert's training and expertise—to believe that the calendar, phonebook, contacts, SMS messages, MMS messages,emails, ringtones, audio files, all call logs, installed application data, GPS information, WIFI information, internet history and usage, or system files were connected with Winn's act of public indecency. In fact, the narrative portion of the complaint did not even mention those categories of data. Furthermore, Detective Lambert admitted at the hearing that he had no reason to believe much of that data contained evidence of the crime of public indecency.
United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919-20 (S.D. Ill. 2015)
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
In my case, the only thing they put was internet searches regarding threats and schools and public officials (FYI a public official ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES.
(720 ILCS 5/12-9) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-9)
(b) For purposes of this Section:
(1) "Public official" means a person who is elected to office in accordance with a statute or who is appointed to an office which is established, and the qualifications and duties of which are prescribed, by statute, to discharge a public duty for the State or any of its political subdivisions or in the case of an elective office any person who has filed the required documents for nomination or election to such office. "Public official" includes a duly appointed assistant State's Attorney, assistant Attorney General, or Appellate Prosecutor; a sworn law enforcement or peace officer; a social worker, caseworker, attorney, or investigator employed by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Children and Family Services, or the Guardianship and Advocacy Commission; or an assistant public guardian, attorney, social worker, case manager, or investigator employed by a duly appointed public guardian.
Schools and their employees are not elected. But anyway, they ONLY THING THEY WERE ALLOWED TO SEACH THOSE COMPUTERS FOR WAS INTERNET SEARCH (BROWSERS HISTORY AND SUCH) IMAGES ARE NOT BROWSER HISTORY.
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - Todd Daugherty Library - 02-11-2025
TOAD DOING A CUT AND PASTE FLOOD MEANS HE IS VERY NERVOUS ABOUT TOMORROW
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
Nope, that's a fact what I'm posting and you can admit it valid
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
BTW that why the original 2009 charge was dismissed because it was for threatening a public official, and under Illinois law a public official is someone who is elected to office. Consolidated Communications which is a telephone company is not a public official under the law, that why it was changed from felony to misdemeanor.
RE: What will happen on Tuesday - admin - 02-11-2025
SA MCWARD; DEFENDANT WITH PD SENGER; B/A, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPRESS SET FOR HEARING ON APRIL 24, 2025 AT 8:45 A.M. (ALL DAY); FURTHER COUNSEL ONLY STATUS HEARING ON APRIL 8, 2025 AT 8:30 A.M.
(30-MINUTES).