Let me explain to you - Printable Version +- Todd Daugherty's 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: Let me explain to you (/showthread.php?tid=447)

Let me explain to you - admin - 07-10-2025 In order to lawfully seize any digital device, law enforcement must establish probable cause, supported by investigative and corroborative evidence. The standard requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, not mere association or speculation. In my case: The alleged threat was posted on March 16th I was arrested on March 17th The search warrant wasn’t obtained until March 21st This timeline provided ample opportunity for investigators to verify the anonymous tip and corroborate its origin or authenticity. Yet they made no such effort. Instead, as the affidavit shows, they simply concluded that the presence of my name on the tip equated to guilt—without further inquiry. It appears they assumed that because the tip originated with the FBI, it was automatically trustworthy. But even federal involvement does not absolve law enforcement of the duty to corroborate. Anonymous tips must be independently verified. Courts have long held that anonymous accusations, absent supporting investigation, do not establish probable cause. The failure to corroborate the tip prior to seeking a warrant renders the seizure of my digital devices unconstitutional and unsupported by law. The Second legal requirement in seizing a digital device—such as a computer—is the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. A warrant must specifically describe the items to be searched for and seized within the device. Broad or vague language is unconstitutional, especially in digital contexts, where computers may contain vast troves of personal data unrelated to any alleged offense. Courts have repeatedly held that: Overly broad warrants that authorize general rummaging through digital files violate the Fourth Amendment Warrants must limit the search to specific file types, dates, or content related to the alleged crime Investigators must not use a device as a “general evidence” grab without clear boundaries In my case, the warrant did not provide sufficient particularity. It failed to limit the scope of the search to files or data directly related to the alleged offense. This failure renders the search invalid, and the seizure of the computer a clear constitutional violation. The Fourth Amendment requires that any warrant be issued by a neutral and detached judge, based on a sworn affidavit that presents the totality of the circumstances. This judicial role is not symbolic—it’s a vital safeguard. The magistrate must carefully review the facts and determine if probable cause truly exists. Failure to present all relevant information, including uncertainties or lack of corroboration, undermines the legitimacy of the warrant. In my case, the affidavit failed to provide a thorough narrative. It lacked meaningful corroboration of the tip, omitted investigative gaps, and presented conclusions as facts. This deprived the judge of the context needed to make a balanced, constitutional determination. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979), warrants must not be authorized by officials with “a personal interest or partial role in the investigation.” Judicial detachment is not optional—it’s foundational.