08-17-2025, 03:04 PM
These are some questions that need to be asked at the Franks Hearing
What steps, if any, did the affiant take to verify the identity of the poster before seeking the arrest?
Did the affiant disclose that the website allowed anonymous posting without login credentials?
Was there any forensic analysis conducted prior to the arrest to link the post to the defendant?
Did the affiant corroborate the tip with any independent evidence before seeking the arrest warrant?
Did the affiant disclose that posts continued in the defendant’s name while he was incarcerated?
Were the March 18th reports from third parties included in the affidavit or deliberately omitted?
Did the affiant inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?
Was the affidavit updated to reflect the March 30th confirmation that the defendant was not the poster?
Did the affiant disclose that the probable cause had been undermined before the search warrant was executed?
Was the affidavit for the March 21st search warrant based on information already contradicted by third-party reports?
Did the affiant inform the court that the charges were dropped and the warrant quashed before the FBI accessed the devices?
Was there any legal basis for Agent O’Sullivan to retrieve and catalog the devices on April 16th after the warrant was invalidated?
Did the FBI disclose that the devices were obtained under a quashed state warrant?
Was the second federal warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?
Did the FBI misrepresent the legal status of the devices in their possession?
Was the computer-generated image used to justify the second warrant obtained during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment?
What steps, if any, did the affiant take to verify the identity of the poster before seeking the arrest?
Did the affiant disclose that the website allowed anonymous posting without login credentials?
Was there any forensic analysis conducted prior to the arrest to link the post to the defendant?
Did the affiant corroborate the tip with any independent evidence before seeking the arrest warrant?
Did the affiant disclose that posts continued in the defendant’s name while he was incarcerated?
Were the March 18th reports from third parties included in the affidavit or deliberately omitted?
Did the affiant inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?
Was the affidavit updated to reflect the March 30th confirmation that the defendant was not the poster?
Did the affiant disclose that the probable cause had been undermined before the search warrant was executed?
Was the affidavit for the March 21st search warrant based on information already contradicted by third-party reports?
Did the affiant inform the court that the charges were dropped and the warrant quashed before the FBI accessed the devices?
Was there any legal basis for Agent O’Sullivan to retrieve and catalog the devices on April 16th after the warrant was invalidated?
Did the FBI disclose that the devices were obtained under a quashed state warrant?
Was the second federal warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?
Did the FBI misrepresent the legal status of the devices in their possession?
Was the computer-generated image used to justify the second warrant obtained during a search that violated the Fourth Amendment?