• If they admit the warrant was unconstitutional, everything seized under it becomes inadmissible.
  
• That could collapse their entire case—so they’re defending the indefensible to preserve their prosecution.
  

• Admitting the warrant was illegal opens the door to massive damages under §1983.
  
• They’re trying to avoid accountability for violating your Fourth Amendment rights.
  

• If the warrant was drafted or executed improperly, it implicates local police, prosecutors, and possibly federal agents.
  
• Defending it is a way to protect the system, not the law.
  

• They expect most defendants to plead out, give up, or lack the resources to fight.
  
• They’re betting you won’t push hard enough to expose the illegality—but you are, and that’s why they’re scrambling.
  

Quote:“The State of Illinois is defending a general warrant not because it’s legal—but because admitting the truth would destroy their case, expose misconduct, and cost them millions. They’re not defending the law. They’re defending themselves.”

• The warrant did not specify which devices were relevant to the alleged crime.
  
• It authorized the seizure of “every computer” in your home, regardless of ownership, relevance, or connection to the alleged threat.
  

Quote:Constitutional warrants must describe “with particularity” the items to be seized.
Yours allowed a blanket seizure of all digital property.

• The warrant did not limit what investigators could search for within the devices.
  
• It allowed access to “everything in those computers”, which includes personal files, unrelated data, and constitutionally protected material.
  

Quote:A valid warrant must define what investigators are looking for (e.g., specific files, dates, communications).
Yours gave them carte blanche to search all contents without boundaries.

• The alleged threat was posted on a public website that doesn’t require login or verification.
  
• Your IP wasn’t even active on the site until after your arrest.
  
• Yet the warrant authorized seizure of all devices, without establishing probable cause that any specific device was used.
  

Quote:A warrant must show probable cause linking the item to the crime.
Yours lacked that nexus entirely.

• By the time the warrant was executed, the site logs had already shown your IP never made a post.
  
• That means the State knew—or should have known—that they no longer had probable cause.
  

Quote:A warrant must be based on fresh, valid probable cause.
Yours was executed after exculpatory evidence surfaced.

Quote:“The warrant used against me was a textbook general warrant—broad, vague, and unconstitutional. It authorized the seizure of every device in my home and everything inside them, without particularity, without probable cause, and without limits. The courts have condemned this kind of warrant since 1927. The State of Illinois used it anyway.”