11 hours ago
The claim that I consented to the search is categorically false. There is no record—written, verbal, or implied—of me ever consenting to the search of my devices. Consent must be explicit and documented; it cannot be inferred from judicial actions or investigative momentum. The judge’s decision to allow the investigation to continue does not equate to personal consent.
Moreover, that’s not even the State’s argument. The State maintains that the original 2018 search warrant was never quashed and remains valid to this day. They claim it has no expiration, which—if true—would mean they could return at any time and seize additional devices under that same warrant. That’s not just unconstitutional—it’s a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Moreover, that’s not even the State’s argument. The State maintains that the original 2018 search warrant was never quashed and remains valid to this day. They claim it has no expiration, which—if true—would mean they could return at any time and seize additional devices under that same warrant. That’s not just unconstitutional—it’s a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment.