You're fucked

[TODD LIKES DICK PIC PORNS]

Just as what I have been saying, right down to good faith. Plus you can't afford as Franks Hearing and your lawyer and your lawyer alone determines it.

Search warrant was supported by probable cause

Where an affidavit supporting a search warrant included information that a woman contacted other parties through Facebook and text messages as part of a bribery scheme, that provided probable cause for a warrant allowing the search of her electronic devices.

Background

This matter is presently before the court on defendant Joshua Brady’s motion to suppress. Defendant’s challenge centers around a search warrant obtained and executed by the Chesterfield County Police Department, or CCPD. Defendant contends that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and the delay between the seizure of his electronic devices by CCPD, and the subsequent execution of a federal search warrant to search the contents of the devices, violated the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis

Defendant argues that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the affidavit did not contain sufficient information that would indicate that incriminating evidence would be located at the residence. Specifically, defendant states that the evidence in the affidavit was only sufficient to justify a search of defendant personally and his phone. Thus, what seems to be at issue is where incriminating evidence of witness bribery could be found, and the relationship between the evidence sought (all electronic devices) and the place to be searched (the listed address).

The search warrant at issue involved a search of 19820 Oak River Drive, for “any and all electronic devices, including but not limited to: computers, cell phones, all electronic storage devices, and the data contained therein.” The affidavit included information that defendant contacted another involved party through Facebook and text messages. The affidavit also indicated that defendant sent JE, the falsely accused rape perpetrator, threatening messages through Snapchat. These applications are both accessed via electronic devices making it reasonable for a magistrate to make the inference that they could be accessed on defendant’s computer as well as his phone.

Additionally, the affidavit included information that defendant told ME he had paid her for the false report using wire transfers. A wire transfer could be completed on a computer or other electronic device other than defendant’s phone. In fact, Detective Hartsook testified at the suppression hearing that, in her experience dealing with electronic evidence, there was a probability that this evidence could be accessed by, backed up to or saved to a computer.

While Detective Hartsook did not have direct evidence that defendant accessed these applications on his computer, “probable cause can be inferred from the circumstances, and a warrant is not invalid for failure to produce direct evidence.” A magistrate could find a substantial basis to conclude, based on the affidavit which describes the false report and bribery in detail, that evidence of the crime of bribery would be found on defendant’s electronic devices.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the warrant was facially invalid, the good faith exception, as outlined in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (908), still bars suppression. Although defendant claims that “Detective Hartsook was reckless in omitting several material facts known to her, and which would have been material to the magistrate,” there is no evidence in the record that Detective Hartsook omitted these facts in an attempt to mislead the magistrate. Even if the evidence was included in the affidavit, moreover, it would not have defeated probable cause to search defendant’s residence. Indeed, some of the omitted facts may have strengthened probable cause.

Next, defendant argues that the delay between the state seizure of the devices and their subsequent search by federal agents constituted a violation of the Warrants Clause. The two cases he relies upon, however, both involved warrantless seizures followed by a delay in obtaining a warrant to search the seized items. In this case, by contrast, there was a valid search warrant at the time of the initial seizure. The state search warrant authorized not only seizure of all electronic devices, but also a search of their contents for evidence of the crime. Even if the cases relied upon by defendant extended to cases involving valid search warrants where there is a delay in the actual search, moreover, the delay here was justified.

Defendant’s motion to suppress denied.

[admin]

Brady’s case involved a valid warrant, a short delay, and direct evidence of criminal activity. Mine involved a quashed warrant, a three-year delay, and no forensic link to the alleged threat. The good faith exception doesn’t apply when the government knows the warrant is invalid and continues anyway. That’s not diligence—it’s misconduct. And the court’s own order proves it.

[admin]

BTW that is in the third circuit, I'm in the seventh circuit. there is a split in the circuit regarding this.

In my circuit there are these cases:

In United States v. Burgard, 675 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2012), the court held: "A delay of eight days between seizure and warrant was not per se unreasonable but emphasized that longer delays must be justified."

The Seventh Circuit has acknowledged United States v. Leon (1984), but has also warned:

"The good faith exception does not apply when law enforcement knew or should have known the warrant was invalid, or when the affidavit was recklessly misleading."

and finally:

United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904 (S.D. Ill. 2015): The court suppressed evidence from a warrant that lacked particularity and authorized a search of all files without linking them to the alleged offense.

[admin]

The other issue with United States v. Brady is Brady's search warrant was based on a direct, corroborated evidence: named witnesses, documented communications, and financial transactions, while mine was based on an anonymous tip that was never corroborated.

[TODD LIKES DICK PIC PORNS]

Mine involved a quashed warrant,

You consented, which is why the DA says the warrant is valid

a three-year delay,

No statute of limitations on child porn possession

and no forensic link to the alleged threat.

Only after the warrant was issued and the evidence examined. And the judge on March 19 ruled probable cause, plus it was an immanent threat to life and safety of children. You also admitted to seeing the post.

And your lawyer isn't going to ask for Franks Hearing because you can not afford, and him and only him decides on that. You have no say in any legal proceedings other than GUILTY/INNOCENT.

---

Here is another case I read on.

Springfield Man was investigated BY FBI for CSAM

AUSA declined prosecution and handed the case over to the state

State case Nolle Presqui. This was 2018

FIVE YEARS LATER...

AUSA picks back up case, goes to federal grand jury

Feds charge him with dozens of CSAM and other nasty things.

Man pleas guilty, sentence to pretty much the rest of his life.

And the real funny thing, guess who his lawyer was?? Mark Wykoff!!!

Mark Wykoff appealed the judges decision, and told Wykoff to eat shit. Decision stands.

[admin]

You consented, which is why the DA says the warrant is valid

No I didn't. there is No document that says that I consent for them to continue. The US Supreme Court has also state that to search digital device 'THEY MUST HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT' the reason is, because digital device can contain a lot of personal and private information, which they do not have probable cause to search.

No statute of limitations on child porn possession

No there is a time limit on when to get a second warrant. that time limit is 30 days, after 30 days it is considered unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. 

Only after the warrant was issued and the evidence examined. And the judge on March 19 ruled probable cause, plus it was an imminent threat to life and safety of children. You also admitted to seeing the post.

And your lawyer isn't going to ask for Franks Hearing because you can not afford, and him and only him decides on that. You have no say in any legal proceedings other than GUILTY/INNOCENT.

The search warrant wasn't issued on March 19, but it was March 21. There was no ‘imminent threat,’ It was made on a Friday afternoon. Schools were closed for the weekend. There was no scheduled event, no named target, no actionable urgency. So, the claim of an ‘imminent threat to children’ doesn’t hold up under scrutiny—it was a vague, anonymous post on a public site that allowed impersonation.
If they genuinely believed lives were at risk, they wouldn’t have waited days to act. And they wouldn’t have relied on a post that continued under my name while I was incarcerated. That’s not probable cause. That’s misidentification.

Franks v. Delaware doesn’t say ‘only if your lawyer feels like it.’ It says if I make a substantial showing that the warrant was based on falsehoods or omissions, the court must grant a hearing. I’ve made that showing. The warrant was quashed. The post was proven anonymous. The forensic search found nothing. And as for your claim that I have no say—read the Constitution. I have every right to challenge the process that tried to erase me. And I’m doing it.

Here is another case I read on.

Springfield Man was investigated BY FBI for CSAM

AUSA declined prosecution and handed the case over to the state

State case Nolle Presqui. This was 2018

FIVE YEARS LATER...

AUSA picks back up case, goes to federal grand jury

Feds charge him with dozens of CSAM and other nasty things.

Man pleas guilty, sentence to pretty much the rest of his life.

And the real funny thing, guess who his lawyer was?? Mark Wykoff!!!

Mark Wykoff appealed the judges decision, and told Wykoff to eat shit. Decision stands.

My case was dismissed. The warrant was quashed. The post was proven false. And the alleged CSAM was found years later, under a general warrant that had already been invalidated. That’s not justice—it’s retroactive justification for an unconstitutional search.

[TODD LIKES DICK PIC PORNS]

Your case was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it very clear that the investigation could continue and you could be still be charged. You were even asked by the judge if you understood and you said yes. Then you mentioned on forums that they had 90 days, then one year, then three years to search your computers. Did you lie then or are you lying now? In either case, you lied, and thus a debate with a pathological liar can not be taken seriously.

the CSAM was not found years later, May 2018 the FBI notified your locals that they found child porn. Do you not keep track of your own lies and stuff you posted?

You were arrested the same day the FBI found out about the threat, they drove to your town that morning, and then you hid from law enforcement until that evening. Considering the 17th and 18th were weekend and the judge declared probable cause on the 19th which allowed for the search warrant to be signed by a judge in good standing and executed.

And on top of that, you filed no paperwork to ask for your computers back. Proof is you thought the local police still had your computers in 2020.

I love how you try to play Perry Mason on the forums but don't do shit in real life. Wykoff and Wykoff alone will decide how to defend you. He's real good at plea bargaining for child pornography cases which is all you can afford. As you said, once the $6,250 is gone, you're fucked. Even $12,500 isn't enough. Oh well, it's your parents money.

---

It says if I make a substantial showing that the warrant was based on falsehoods or omissions

There was no omission or falsehoods, unless you want to claim he didn't mention your conviction in 2010 for threatening to blow up a building. Plus the Good Faith provision which your retarded mind doesn't understand.

See, the DA knows he has a case against you and was going to trounce that Motion to Dismiss and Tiffany chickened out and left as your lawyer knowing she was going to lose.

[admin]

our case was Nolle Presqui and the judge made it very clear that the investigation could continue and you could be still be charged. You were even asked by the judge if you understood and you said yes. Then you mentioned on forums that they had 90 days, then one year, then three years to search your computers. Did you lie then or are you lying now? In either case, you lied, and thus a debate with a pathological liar can not be taken seriously.

NOPE, you better read again....

04/16/2018 Motion to Dismiss filed by the State.
Order entered and filed. Case dismissed.

Christian County, IL | Case History

the CSAM was not found years later, May 2018 the FBI notified your locals that they found child porn. Do you not keep track of your own lies and stuff you posted?

The "CSAM" they found in April (Not May) was computer generated. Computer generated is not CSAM, it can't be classified as CSAM according to the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. 

You were arrested the same day the FBI found out about the threat, they drove to your town that morning, and then you hid from law enforcement until that evening. Considering the 17th and 18th were weekend and the judge declared probable cause on the 19th which allowed for the search warrant to be signed by a judge in good standing and executed

.

Nope, the FBI received tip on Friday March 16th and the next day, Saturday March 17th the police came to my house and arrested me. their 'PROBABLE CAUSE' you keep blabbing about was "that was a threat, that was your name, therefore a reasonable person would believe you did it" that is what the police told me at the police station. The search warrant was issued on the 21st. your full of shit, on your bullshit claim.

And on top of that, you filed no paperwork to ask for your computers back. Proof is you thought the local police still had your computers in 2020.

Nope, both me and my father asked for the computers back.

[admin]

There was no omission or falsehoods, unless you want to claim he didn't mention your conviction in 2010 for threatening to blow up a building. Plus the Good Faith provision which your retarded mind doesn't understand.

See, the DA knows he has a case against you and was going to trounce that Motion to Dismiss and Tiffany chickened out and left as your lawyer knowing she was going to lose.

Let’s correct your fiction with facts.

There were omissions—starting with the failure to disclose that the website allowed anonymous posts, didn’t require login credentials, and continued publishing threats under my name while I was incarcerated. That’s not just an omission—it’s exculpatory evidence deliberately ignored. As for the 2010 case: it was resolved, irrelevant to the 2018 warrant, and never cited in the affidavit. If you think dragging up old charges justifies a false arrest years later, you don’t understand how probable cause works.
And the ‘Good Faith’ exception? It doesn’t apply when the warrant was quashed, the affidavit was misleading, and the FBI waited three years to get a second warrant after illegally searching my devices. That’s not good faith—it’s constitutional malpractice.

[admin]

Apparently, YOU don't understand the timeline:

A threat was made on March 16, 2018, on a website that doesn't require a login and people pretending to be people is the status quo.

The next day March 17th the police arrested me without an investigation and with corroborating the tip. I was in jail for a month on a 250,000-dollar bond

On March 18th two individuals got a hold of the police, FBI and State Attorney to notify them that more post were being made in my name while I was still in jail.

On March 19th The police got a warrant to my internet service provider to get my mac address and my IP The issue is they SHOULD HAVE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM NOT JUST FROM MY ISP BUT THE ISP OF THE WEBSITE THE THREAT WAS POSTED ON...BUT THEY DIDN'T INSTEAD ALL THEY GOT WAS MY IP. YOU CAN NOT CREATE A NEXUS LIKE THAT!!

On March 21, 2018, The police got a search warrant to seize all the computers in my house. The police didn't verify if my IP address was on the site, all they did was get my ISP from my website. AGAIN, THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN BOTH RECORDS TO VERIFY IF IT WAS ME THAT MADE THE THREAT, BUT THEY DIDN'T!

On March 30th The police sent a warrant to Hate and Flame the website the threat was posted on, which confirmed that I didn’t make the post, in fact I wasn’t on that site at all. THEY FINALLY GOT THE OTHER RECORDS THAT SHOWED I WAS NOT ON THAT SITE. THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT ON DAY ONE, BUT BEING FUCKING RETARDED LIKE YOU THEY DIDN'T

By this time, the police and state knew they no longer had probable cause. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GO TO THE JUDGE WITH THIS NEW INFORMATION. THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ADMITTING THAT THEY WERE NOT TRUTHFUL ON THE AFFIDAVIT OR THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR ALL MY COMPUTERS

April 4th the police asked the FBI if they could go through the computers KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE!

April 11th the Taylorville police hand the computers over to the FBI who took them to Springfield and put them in storage.

April 16th the charges were dropped, and the search warrant was quashed. That same day Agent O’Sullivan got the devices out of storage to catalog them. THE FBI WAS MADE AWARE BY THE TAYLORVILLE POLICE THAT THE CHARGES HAD BEEN DROPPED AND THE WARRANT WAS QUASHED

April 23rd, 2018, he begins going through them on the invalid state warrant and found a computer-generated image and stopped the search to get a second warrant. AGAIN KNOWN FROM THE TAYLORVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED AND THE WARRANT HAD BEEN QUASHED

March 2, 2020, The FBI got their second warrant claiming they were in legal possession under a state search warrant. THE FBI LIED TO THE FEDERAL JUDGE CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD A VALID STATE SEARCH WARRANT KNOWNING WELL THAT THE CHARGES HAD BEEN DROPPED AND THE WARRANT WAS QUASHED. THE FBI DID NOT TELL THE FEDERAL JUDGE THAT.