How am I going to jail??

[admin]

not only could they not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. probable cause is the low standard, even for an arrest and they didn't even have that.

As I also stated the warrant was a general warrant because 1. they didn't probable cause 2. the tip from the tipster wasn't corroborated by police which is a requirement for probable cause 3. The warrant didn't state what the crime was. 4. the warrant didn't state what they were seizing. 5. the warrant didn't limit itself to a time frame. so yeah, it was a general warrant.

[Guest]

Doesn't matter, you consented to the search and investigation in that hearing. But it wasn't a general warrant, it was very specific in what they were looking for. And the hearing said the search could continue... Remember, it was you who said they had three years to keep investigating your computers.

NO OBJECTIONS!!!!!!

So Toad, do you want me to quote that pdf text you failed to black out properly???? Like I said, you are too stupid to know how a pdf file system works.

P.S. - You never asked for those computers back until 2021, in fact in 2020 you said the computers were never turned over to the FBI. If you had asked for them back, you would know that they were.

You should have gotten a Dismissal with Prejudice but you're too stupid and know everything!!!!!

Enjoy.....

---

You also forget that your threat to that school was an immanent threat. Plus you lied to the police during your interrogation. You should have followed my advice and not said anything except "I want a lawyer".. But for 90 minutes, you sang like a bitch to them.

[admin]

Doesn't matter, you consented to the search and investigation in that hearing. But it wasn't a general warrant, it was very specific in what they were looking for. And the hearing said the search could continue... Remember, it was you who said they had three years to keep investigating your computers.

NO OBJECTIONS!!!!!!

So Toad, do you want me to quote that pdf text you failed to black out properly???? Like I said, you are too stupid to know how a pdf file system works.

P.S. - You never asked for those computers back until 2021, in fact in 2020 you said the computers were never turned over to the FBI. If you had asked for them back, you would know that they were.

You should have gotten a Dismissal with Prejudice but you're too stupid and know everything!!!!!

Enjoy.....

---

You also forget that your threat to that school was an immanent threat. Plus you lied to the police during your interrogation. You should have followed my advice and not said anything except "I want a lawyer".. But for 90 minutes, you sang like a bitch to them.

AGAIN, nowhere did I consent to a search, the search was brought from a warrant that was again a general warrant and later was dismissed. The warrant did not state what they were looking for, prove it! because you're talking out your ass

[admin]

[admin]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS CHRISTIAN COUNTY, TAYLORVILLE, ILLINOIS
SEARCH WARRANT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

TO ALL PEACE OFFICERS OF THE STATE GREETING:

WHEREAS, State of Illinois, this date appeared in person and made complaint in writing, on oath, before the undersigned a Judge of the Circuit Court of Christian County, State of
Chris Illinois; and Matoush

WHEREAS, the undersigned being satisfied that there is probable cause from facts stated in the attached Affidavit for the offense of felony disorderly conduct.
WE THEREFORE COMMAND YOU TO SEARCH the place or person hereinafter particularly described and to seize the instruments, articles or things described as follows:

TO BE SEARCHED:

The residence of 800 W. MAIN CROSS, TAYLORVILLE IL 62568, a two-story residential home with basement that has red siding. The property contains a separate detached garage with blue siding. It is located at the corner of Main Cross and Morton Streets in Taylorville IL, County of Christian. The home is occupied by Todd E. Daugherty, James Daugherty, and Mary Daugherty.

TO BE SEIZED:

Any and all computers, as defined in 720 ILCS 5/16D-2; any and all magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to hard disk drives, floppy disks, compact discs, DVDs, USB devices, and any and all passwords or other computer security devices, and any and all information and data stored in the form of magnetic or electronic coding on computer media or on media capable of being read by a computer or with the aid of computer equipment, any and all computer software, any and all evidence, data or information pertaining to the possession including but not limited to: any and all evidence of dominion and control over the computer, specifically, but not limited to, a computer possessing MAC address "EC:4F:82:29:B4:03" or IP address "72.9.123.215"; peer to peer file trading software; any and all information pertaining to dates and times of access to the computer; any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials; records and other items which evidence ownership or use of computer equipment found in the above residence; including but not limited to sales receipts, bills for internet access and handwritten notes, records evidencing occupancy or ownership of the premises described above including but not limited to utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes or address correspondence. This search warrant shall include authority to analyze and search any magnetic or optical media seized for relevant evidence as outlined in this search warrant, and the property described herein, when found, shall be inventoried and a return of all instruments, articles or things seized shall be made without unnecessary delay.

Complainant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of
March
20 1
I have examined the foregoing Complaint for Search Warrant and hereby order that a Search Warrant be issued.

Judge of the Circuit Court Christian County, Illinois

[admin]

Well, I posted the search warrant, I am waiting for your response.

[Guest]

any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials

Confirms what I said and you left out the attachment affidavit

Plus you consented to the search and investigation to continue in April. The judge even asked if you understood that. No one does is state you were EXCLUDED from that investigation and search.

Your legal guardians should have hired you a real lawyer. Would have saved them a lot of money in the long run.

Now, did those teens on youtube set up you?? Like a Tootsie roll lolly pop, the world will never know.

Anyhow, you branded for life and the internet (nor I) care if your rights were violated or not. You're a child pornographer and that never goes away... EVER!!!

[admin]

any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials

Confirms what I said and you left out the attachment affidavit

Plus you consented to the search and investigation to continue in April. The judge even asked if you understood that. No one does is state you were EXCLUDED from that investigation and search.

Your legal guardians should have hired you a real lawyer. Would have saved them a lot of money in the long run.

Now, did those teens on youtube set up you?? Like a Tootsie roll lolly pop, the world will never know.

Anyhow, you branded for life and the internet (nor I) care if your rights were violated or not. You're a child pornographer and that never goes away... EVER!!!

"any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials" is too broad in scope and there nothing mentioned in the affidavit about internet searches regarding threats toward schools or public officials, in fact there NOTHING in the warrant to link me with the threat at all. also prior to getting that warrant a few individuals stating to the police, FBI and State Attorney that more threats after that post was being made on that site under my name, which was impossible because I was in jail. (Emails and phone calls made on March 18, and March 19th). This warrant is a general warrant I know is, my lawyer knows it is, a group out in Washington DC who help in my case and are experts in the fourth amendment knows it is. 
where does state: I consented to the search and investigation to continue in April?? show the document. The state stated that they still plan to investigate, but with the documents we have, they don't even have probable cause that I did it. I don't have "legal guardians" as you claim. 


here the affidavit for the warrant



COPY
AFFIDAVIT
1, Christian Nelson, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:

That I, Christian Nelson, a Police Officer with the Taylorville Police Department having been a police officer for 1 year. That the facts contained in the application are based on my observation and information, as well as the information and observations of other law enforcement officers; that to the best of my knowledge, the information contained herein is true and correct.

(1). The FBI Springfield office received a tip that Todd E. Daugherty (M/W D.O.B. 07/05/1968) posted on internet social forum Hateandflame.com the following comment "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.".

(2). Todd E. Daugherty has a HAM radio operator call sign of "N90GL". The post threatening violence against Memorial School was issued by someone with user-name "N90GL".

(3). Todd E. Daugherty has threatened violence against public officials and institutions in the past, including on June 22, 2015, and his profile picture is an image of him holding a 1911 style handgun and pointing it at a camera.

(4). Todd E. Daugherty stated that he was familiar with the website, but stated that he did not make the post. Daugherty claimed that he was being set up by another member of the online community to have his HAM radio license suspended by the FCC.

(5). The post in question from Hateandflame.com was submitted with a picture of T. Daugherty posing with and pointing a firearm at the camera. This picture was identical to T. Daugherty's profile picture that appears with his post. T. Daugherty does not posess a valid IL FOID card.

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me this 21th day of March 2018.
Ci Judge

[admin]

(1). The FBI Springfield office received a tip that Todd E. Daugherty (M/W D.O.B. 07/05/1968) posted on internet social forum Hateandflame.com the following comment "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.".

"The Device Warrant lacked probable cause because it was based on the statement of an anonymous informant whose credibility was completely uncorroborated by subsequent investigation. Instead, the warrant affidavit rests on the fact that a threatening online post contained publicly available information-Daugherty's name, ham radio signal, and a photograph."

"The affidavit in this case fails both prongs of Aguilar-Spinelli. Although the affidavit explained that the FBI received a tip, it did not establish that the individual who made that tip was a known or reliable informant. Instead, it merely stated that the "FBI Springfield office received a tip..." that it was Todd E. Daugherty. Furthermore, it did not establish the individual's basis of knowledge that the post was made by Todd Daugherty as opposed to someone using his name and information to impersonate him. For example, it did not state that the tipster was a website administrator who had access to log files showing the user's connection to Todd Daugherty. Nor did it state the tipster was a friend or acquaintance who overheard him discussing the post. Therefore, neither prong of Aguilar-Spinnelli was met."

"For similar reasons the Device Warrant fails the Gates "totality of circumstances" test. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 230. Neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion can be based solely on an anonymous tip that merely provides the static details of a suspect's life along with an allegation of criminal conduct. See People v. Yarber, 279 Ill.App.3d 519, 529 (1996). This is true even when target has a prior criminal conviction. See id. at 523 (police confirmed Yarber's race, height, and weight through a criminal background check); see also United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005)."

"In Florida v. J.L., an anonymous caller reported that a young black male was standing at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a gun. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 268 (2000). This anonymous tip was held to be insufficient even where police corroborated the location of the defendant and the type of clothing he was wearing. Id. at 272. This is because "[s]uch a tip...does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity." Id. In Yarber, the fifth district extended that logic to a case where the anonymous tipster claimed that her best friends regularly bought cannabis from a man named Samuel Yarber and provided a physical description of Yarber, his address, and his place of employment. Yarber, 279 Ill.App.3d at 522. Police confirmed this information and stopped Yarber as he was leaving a train station. Id. at 521-522. However, the court found "reasonable and articulable suspicion requires more than corroboration of innocent details. Without verification of any other portion of the informant's tip, for all the police knew, Samuel Yarber was the victim of a malicious prank." Id. at 529. This holding is consistent with both federal and Illinois precedent. See e.g. United States v. Lopez, 907 F.3d 472, 482 (7th Cir. 2018) (when a tipster is unknown officers "must conduct and rely upon independent investigation to corroborate a tip before seizing a person."); People v. Lopez, 2018 IL App (1st) 153331 (App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2018) (insufficient corroboration of an anonymous tip)."

"The Yarber decision is controlling here. Here, Daugherty was linked to the account posting the threat by an anonymous tipster. The affidavit did not establish that the tipster was known to police or in any way reliable. To the contrary, they utilized a computer network designed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory to ensure they could not be traced. Although police confirmed that the user posting the threat used Daugherty's name, likeness and call sign, this was all publicly available static information. As the court pointed out in Yarber, "without verification of any other portion of the informant's tip, for all the police knew, [Todd Daugherty] was the victim of a malicious prank." Yarber, 279 Ill.App.3d at at 529. The questionable value of the publicly available information in linking him to the account was further diminished by the affidavit's references to the fact that Daugherty told police he did not post on the site and was being "set up" by someone who was trying to have his ham radio license suspended by the FCC. The other information in the affidavit was merely gratuitous information about Daugherty's past conviction, for an unrelated threat on law enforcement and does nothing to establish a reliable link between him and the threatening post."

[admin]

As for the warrant:

"The Device Warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant because it was completely lacking in particularity and as a result an overbroad' general warrant of the type "abhorred by the colonists" that lead to the creation of the Fourth Amendment and the particularity clause. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038 (1971); see also Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 2239-2240 (2018). Specifically, the warrant here failed to identify the data to be seized from the electronic devices or even the crime for which the police were required to restrict its search."

"The amount of particularity required in a warrant can fluctuate depending on the nature of the case, evidence sought, and information known to police. See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 481 n. 10 & 11 (1976); United States v. Strand, 761 F.2d 449, 453 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Regan, 706 F.Supp. 1102, 1113 (S.D.N.Y.1989). However, one thing is clear-warrants must, at a bare minimum, state the crimes for which evidence is being sought. United States v. Cioffi, 668 F.Supp.2d 385, 390 (E.D.N.Y 2009); United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127, 1132 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zemlyansky, 945 F.Supp.2d 438 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.M.E. 2003); United States v. Mink, 613 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574 (D. V.T. 1998); cf. United States v. Christie, 717 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Romain, 678 Fed.Appx. 23 (2d Cir 2017). This means the specific crime for which probable cause is found and not just a category of crime, as "[a]n unadorned reference to a broad federal statute does not sufficiently limit the scope of a search warrant." United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 602 (10th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that search warrant violated particularity requirement where only limitation on scope of search was items to be seized had to be evidence of violation of one of thirteen statutes); United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1980) (finding that search warrant violated particularity requirement where only limitation was reference to the mail fraud statute); Cassady v. Goering, 567 F.3d 628, 636 (10th Cir.2009); United States v. Clark, 31 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 1994). This is especially true where the statute is broad or language like "any or all data" accompanies the restriction. United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919 (S.D. Ill. 2015). This rule applies because, "whatever new challenges computer searches pose in terms of particularity, it is always necessary – and hardly onerous – to confine any search to evidence of particular crimes." Cioffi, 668 F. Supp. 2d at 392."

"The search here was unlimited in that it allowed a search of any computer or computer storage device for the following:
 
any and all evidence of dominion and control over the computer, specifically, but not limited to, a computer possessing MAC address "EC:4F:82:29:84:03" or IP address "72.9.123.215"; peer to peer file trading software; any and all information pertaining to dates and times of access to the computer; any and all information pertaining to internet searches pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence directed towards schools or public officials; records and other items which evidence ownership or use of computer equipment found in the above residence; including but not limited to sales receipts, bills for internet access and handwritten notes, records evidencing occupancy or ownership of the premises described above including but not limited to utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes or address correspondence. Search Warrant, 18-MR-40 (emphasis added) (Exhibit F).

"This does not limit the search to evidence of the threatening post. The language specifically "includes but is not limited to" the subsequent clauses which provide an illustrative but non-exclusive list of what the government may search for and seize. See In Matter of Black iPhone 4, 27 F.Supp.3d 74 (E.D.D.C. 2014) (Lists are illustrative rather than exclusionary where they include precursors like “[a]ll records...including" and then list different types of data). Lists of evidence that are illustrative rather than exclusionary or exhaustive should be heavily scrutinized. United States v. Wey, 2017 WL 257402 at *21-22 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). This is because those phrases "make the seizure list broader than the categories specifically listed." In Matter of Black iPhone 4, 27 F.Supp.3d at 78. Where such lists "merely identify generic classes of items and permit the seizure of virtually all conceivable documents" they cannot render an otherwise un-particularized warrant sufficiently particular. People v. Melamed, 178 A.D.3d 1079 (2d Dept. 2019)."

"The warrant did not limit the searches of any of the devices to any particular category(s) of information for example: web browser history, cookies, photographs, emails, etc. See e.g. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 919; United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d,574, 581 (D. V.T. 1998). It did not provide temporal limitations on the search. See e.g. United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 576 (6th Cir. 2006) ("Failure to limit broad descriptive terms by relevant dates, when such dates are available to the police, will render a warrant overbroad."); United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (9th Cir. 1995) (warrant "not sufficiently particular" in part because the "government did not limit the scope of the seizure to a time frame within which the suspected criminal activity took place"); United States v. Abrams, 615 F.2d 541, 545 (1st Cir. 1980) (deeming warrant insufficiently particularized and noting, among other things, that "[a] time frame should also have been incorporated into the warrant"). Instead, the Device Warrant authorized an unfettered search of every device in the household "not limited to" an illustrative list of categories of information."

"Warrants for "any and all files" that "include[] but [are] not limited to" an illustrative list of various types of data found on a phone are patently unconstitutional. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 919. In Winn the Southern District Court of Illinois noted "[t]he major, overriding problem with the description of the object of the search--"any or all files"--is that the police did not have probable cause to believe that everything on the phone was evidence of the crime of public indecency. Id. Instead there "was probable cause to believe that only two categories of data could possibly be evidence of the crime: photos and videos." Id. Furthermore even "[w]ith respect to the categories of data for which the police did have probable cause--the photos and the videos-the warrant was not as particular as could be reasonably expected given the nature of the crime and the information the police possessed. The warrant merely described the category of data, rather than specific items, which allowed the police to seize all of the photos and videos on Winn's phone, as opposed to specific photos and videos..." but "Detective Lambert knew the precise identity and content of the photos/videos sought. However, he failed to mention the characteristics that made those photos/videos easily identifiable and distinguished them from others that were irrelevant. For example, the warrant could have described the location of the incident as well as the subjects of the images-children at a swimming pool, or more specifically young girls in swimsuits at the Mascoutah Public Pool." Id. at 920. The court further noted that there were no temporal limitations and the only limit implied by the warrant was an unadorned reference to a criminal statute. Id. at 921."

"Here the Device Warrant uses the same "any and all" language as Winn, the additional broad phrase "including but not limited to," followed by an illustrative list of various types of data. This illustrative list includes types of data for which there is not probable cause. It imposes no temporal limitations and fails to even impose the minimal restriction from Winn limiting the search to evidence of a specific criminal statute. 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."