why I am suing - 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: why I am suing (/showthread.php?tid=544)

why I am suing - admin - 02-21-2026 What proper cybercrime investigation requires: Cybercrime investigations have well‑established standards. Even at the most basic level, officers are expected to: verify the source of a report confirm the IP address check whether the site requires login determine whether the suspect had access to the account look for corroborating evidence rule out impersonation confirm whether the device in question was used These are not optional steps. They’re the foundation of digital forensics. When police skip these steps, they’re not “being efficient.” They’re violating constitutional protections. What happened in my case instead My case shows a breakdown at every stage: They acted on an anonymous tip with no verification. They did not check the IP address before getting a warrant. They did not confirm whether you used the website. They did not establish a nexus between the alleged threat and your devices. They obtained a warrant without probable cause. The warrant was later quashed. The FBI searched your devices after the warrant was quashed. A judge ruled the search was unconstitutional. This is not a “mistake.” It’s a systemic failure. Why anonymous tips are not enough Courts have repeatedly ruled that: anonymous tips without corroboration without verification without independent evidence cannot establish probable cause. This is because anyone can impersonate anyone online — which is exactly what happened to me. Police are supposed to protect people from false accusations, not amplify them. Why my frustration is justified I'm not saying police shouldn’t investigate cybercrime. I'm saying they should actually investigate, not: take an anonymous claim at face value skip digital verification ignore exculpatory evidence rely on assumptions treat impersonation as proof violate constitutional protections My expectation is the same expectation every citizen has: If police are going to accuse someone of a cybercrime, they should do the work to make sure they have the right person. That didn’t happen in my case. They did not: [*]They didn’t verify. [*]They didn’t corroborate. [*]They didn’t establish nexus. [*]They didn’t follow procedure. [*]They didn’t respect the Fourth Amendment. RE: why I am suing - admin - 02-28-2026 What Went Wrong in My Case: A Clear Explanation of the Constitutional Violations For years, I’ve lived under the shadow of accusations that were based on false information, online impersonation, and an unconstitutional search. This post explains, in plain language, what actually happened and why the court dismissed the case. 1. There Was No Probable Cause To get a warrant, police must show probable cause. That means they must have real evidence that: a crime was committed, the person they want to search committed it, and evidence of that crime will be found in the place they want to search. In my case, none of those requirements were met. The accusation came from an anonymous post on a website that: did not require a login, did not verify identity, did not link to my IP address, and continued posting even while I was in jail. There was no evidence that I wrote the post, no witness, no confession, no device logs, and no technical link to me. Anonymous claims without verification cannot establish probable cause. 2. There Was No Nexus Between the Allegation and My Devices When police want to search computers, they must show a nexus — a specific connection between the alleged crime and the device. They must show why they believe evidence will be found on that device. In my case, they did not: check the IP address before getting the warrant, show that the post came from my home, show that I used the website, show that I had access to the account, or show any digital evidence linking me to the threat. When the IP was finally checked, it traced to Ohio, not to me. Without a nexus, a computer search warrant is unconstitutional. 3. The Warrant Itself Was Invalid The warrant had multiple fatal defects: It lacked probable cause. It lacked particularity (it allowed a search of everything). It did not properly incorporate the affidavit. It allowed a general search of all devices and all data. General warrants are forbidden under the Fourth Amendment. The judge later quashed the warrant, meaning it was invalid from the start. 4. The FBI Searched My Devices After the Warrant Was Quashed This is the most serious violation. Once the warrant was quashed, the FBI had no legal authority to: retain my devices, image them, analyze them, or search them in any way. But they did anyway. The judge ruled this was a clear Fourth Amendment violation and suppressed the evidence. Without that evidence, the case was dismissed. 5. The Case Was Dismissed Because My Rights Were Violated The dismissal wasn’t a technicality. It was based on: an invalid warrant, an unlawful search, a lack of probable cause, and the government acting without authority. The court rejected the State’s “good faith” argument and made specific factual findings on the record. This wasn’t a loophole. This was a constitutional violation. 6. Why I’m Pursuing a Civil Rights Case The online impersonation, the false accusations, and the years of harassment created the situation — but the government’s actions are what violated my rights. A civil‑rights case is the lawful way to: hold the government accountable, correct the public record, and repair the damage caused by an unconstitutional search. This is not about revenge. It’s about restoring my life and clearing my name.