The issue is that people think this case is "cut and dry," but that's far from the truth.
1. A threat was made against a school.
2. The next day, I was arrested without the police investigating or corroborating the tip.
3. A day later, individuals informed the police, FBI, and state attorney that more posts, including threats, were being made on the same website—which was impossible since I was in jail.
4. The state obtained a warrant to search my house and seize every computer, making it a General Warrant.
5. A week later, they got records from the website showing I didn't make the threat or access the site. The attorney admitted this in an affidavit, proving no probable cause.
6. Despite knowing they lacked probable cause, the police contacted the FBI to search the computers, which the FBI picked up a week later.
7. On April 16th, the charges were dropped, and the warrant was quashed.
8. A week later, the FBI searched the computers without a warrant, violating the law (Riley v California 2014, United States v Winn 2015).
9. During this search, they found a computer-generated image and paused to get a second warrant.
10. Two years later, they obtained a second warrant, claiming the computers were under a valid state warrant.
11. They searched the devices and passed the information to the U.S. Assistant Attorney, who declined to prosecute. The FBI returned the case to the state.
12. In 2022, the state arrested me again based on that invalid search warrant.
SO:
1. The warrant was a general warrant.
2. They lacked probable cause from the start.
3. The quashed warrant made subsequent
1. A threat was made against a school.
2. The next day, I was arrested without the police investigating or corroborating the tip.
3. A day later, individuals informed the police, FBI, and state attorney that more posts, including threats, were being made on the same website—which was impossible since I was in jail.
4. The state obtained a warrant to search my house and seize every computer, making it a General Warrant.
5. A week later, they got records from the website showing I didn't make the threat or access the site. The attorney admitted this in an affidavit, proving no probable cause.
6. Despite knowing they lacked probable cause, the police contacted the FBI to search the computers, which the FBI picked up a week later.
7. On April 16th, the charges were dropped, and the warrant was quashed.
8. A week later, the FBI searched the computers without a warrant, violating the law (Riley v California 2014, United States v Winn 2015).
9. During this search, they found a computer-generated image and paused to get a second warrant.
10. Two years later, they obtained a second warrant, claiming the computers were under a valid state warrant.
11. They searched the devices and passed the information to the U.S. Assistant Attorney, who declined to prosecute. The FBI returned the case to the state.
12. In 2022, the state arrested me again based on that invalid search warrant.
SO:
1. The warrant was a general warrant.
2. They lacked probable cause from the start.
3. The quashed warrant made subsequent
