Let’s correct the record—your claims are factually and legally inaccurate.
- My father did not consent, nor did he “show them where they were.”
The police conducted a search of the house. There was no voluntary guidance, no waiver of rights, and no informed consent. The idea that his passive presence or lack of objection constitutes valid consent is legally baseless. Consent must be knowing, voluntary, and explicit—none of which occurred.
- We did ask for the property back.
Multiple requests were made, both formally and informally. The government’s continued retention of the property—despite the quashing of the warrant—is a violation of due process and property rights. The burden is not on me to endlessly demand what was unlawfully taken; it’s on the State to return it once the legal basis evaporates.
- The warrant was quashed—full stop.
The April 16, 2018, court order invalidated the search warrant. The FBI’s subsequent search on April 23, 2018, was conducted under a void instrument. That’s not just improper—it’s unconstitutional. The State’s attempt to distinguish between the arrest and search warrants is a deliberate misrepresentation of the record.
- Consent on KiwiFarms? That’s laughable.
Public commentary on a forum—years after the fact—is not legal consent. It’s not binding, not contemporaneous, and not directed to law enforcement. Trying to twist forum posts into retroactive authorization is legally absurd and ethically dishonest.
- Mr. Wykoff is not just “good luck”—he’s a constitutional firewall.
His affiliation with the NACDL and the Fourth Amendment Center means this case is being reviewed through a national lens. The State’s misconduct, misrepresentation, and unlawful search will not go unchecked.