08-17-2025, 03:25 PM
Here's some more ...
Did the affiant know that the website allowed impersonation and anonymous posting?
Was the affiant aware of prior impersonation incidents involving the defendant?
Did the affiant consult with any digital forensic experts before asserting authorship of the post?
Was the affiant trained in internet investigations or digital identity verification?
Did the affidavit include the full context of the alleged threat, or was it selectively quoted?
Were any statements in the affidavit based on hearsay or unverified third-party claims?
Did the affiant omit the fact that the defendant had publicly criticized the police and announced intent to sue?
Was the affidavit reviewed by a supervisor or prosecutor before submission to the judge?
Was there a documented chain of custody for the seized devices from March 21 to April 16?
Did the FBI obtain a separate warrant before cataloging or accessing the devices on April 16?
Was any data accessed, copied, or analyzed before the second federal warrant was issued?
Were the devices stored in a secure, tamper-proof environment during the interim period?
Did the FBI disclose that the devices were originally seized under a quashed warrant?
Was the second warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?
Did the FBI misrepresent the origin of the image used to justify the second warrant?
Was the image found during a search that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights?
Did the affiant or investigators have prior knowledge of the defendant’s public criticism or lawsuits?
Was the arrest timed in relation to the defendant’s public statements or legal filings?
Did any officer express personal animus or bias toward the defendant in internal communications?
Was the investigation influenced by reputational concerns or political pressure?
Was the judge who signed the original warrant made aware of the anonymous nature of the website?
Did the affiant disclose that the defendant was already incarcerated when new posts appeared?
Was the judge informed that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?
Did the court receive any updates between March 21 and April 16 regarding the collapse of probable cause?
Was the judge who signed the second federal warrant made aware that the devices were obtained under a quashed warrant?
Did the affiant understand the difference between an IP address and a MAC address in attribution?
Was the MAC address ever linked to the defendant’s devices through forensic analysis?
Did the affiant or FBI verify whether the IP address was dynamic or static at the time of the post?
Was there any attempt to trace the actual poster through browser fingerprinting, cookies, or session logs?
Did the FBI or police consult with the website’s administrators about impersonation patterns or spoofing
Did the FBI know the state warrant had been quashed before accessing the devices?
Was there any memorandum of understanding between the state and federal agencies regarding the devices?
Did Agent O’Sullivan notify the state prosecutor before cataloging the devices on April 16?
Was there any internal discussion about the legality of continuing the investigation after charges were dropped?
Did the FBI rely on state-level probable cause that had already been invalidated?
Was the defendant’s public criticism of law enforcement cited in any internal communications or affidavits?
Did any officer or agent express concern about reputational damage or lawsuits stemming from the defendant’s speech?
Was the arrest or investigation timed to coincide with the defendant’s legal filings or public statements?
Has this department previously faced allegations of retaliatory arrests or misuse of digital evidence?
Were any officers disciplined or investigated for their role in this case?
Did the prosecution disclose the March 30th website confirmation to the defense in a timely manner?
Was any exculpatory evidence withheld during pretrial proceedings?
Did the FBI disclose the full chain of custody and access logs for the devices?
Was the image used to justify the second warrant disclosed to the defense before the warrant was issued?
Did the government ever attempt to suppress or seal evidence that contradicted their narrative?
Cross examination Questions that need to be asked:
“Can you explain why you proceeded with a search after the warrant was quashed?”
“Did you inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant was not the poster?”
“Why did you wait nearly two years to obtain a federal warrant after accessing the devices?”
“Is it standard practice to use evidence obtained during an invalid search to justify a new warrant?”
Did the affiant know that the website allowed impersonation and anonymous posting?
Was the affiant aware of prior impersonation incidents involving the defendant?
Did the affiant consult with any digital forensic experts before asserting authorship of the post?
Was the affiant trained in internet investigations or digital identity verification?
Did the affidavit include the full context of the alleged threat, or was it selectively quoted?
Were any statements in the affidavit based on hearsay or unverified third-party claims?
Did the affiant omit the fact that the defendant had publicly criticized the police and announced intent to sue?
Was the affidavit reviewed by a supervisor or prosecutor before submission to the judge?
Was there a documented chain of custody for the seized devices from March 21 to April 16?
Did the FBI obtain a separate warrant before cataloging or accessing the devices on April 16?
Was any data accessed, copied, or analyzed before the second federal warrant was issued?
Were the devices stored in a secure, tamper-proof environment during the interim period?
Did the FBI disclose that the devices were originally seized under a quashed warrant?
Was the second warrant based on evidence obtained during an unlawful search?
Did the FBI misrepresent the origin of the image used to justify the second warrant?
Was the image found during a search that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights?
Did the affiant or investigators have prior knowledge of the defendant’s public criticism or lawsuits?
Was the arrest timed in relation to the defendant’s public statements or legal filings?
Did any officer express personal animus or bias toward the defendant in internal communications?
Was the investigation influenced by reputational concerns or political pressure?
Was the judge who signed the original warrant made aware of the anonymous nature of the website?
Did the affiant disclose that the defendant was already incarcerated when new posts appeared?
Was the judge informed that the website confirmed the defendant had never accessed it?
Did the court receive any updates between March 21 and April 16 regarding the collapse of probable cause?
Was the judge who signed the second federal warrant made aware that the devices were obtained under a quashed warrant?
Did the affiant understand the difference between an IP address and a MAC address in attribution?
Was the MAC address ever linked to the defendant’s devices through forensic analysis?
Did the affiant or FBI verify whether the IP address was dynamic or static at the time of the post?
Was there any attempt to trace the actual poster through browser fingerprinting, cookies, or session logs?
Did the FBI or police consult with the website’s administrators about impersonation patterns or spoofing
Did the FBI know the state warrant had been quashed before accessing the devices?
Was there any memorandum of understanding between the state and federal agencies regarding the devices?
Did Agent O’Sullivan notify the state prosecutor before cataloging the devices on April 16?
Was there any internal discussion about the legality of continuing the investigation after charges were dropped?
Did the FBI rely on state-level probable cause that had already been invalidated?
Was the defendant’s public criticism of law enforcement cited in any internal communications or affidavits?
Did any officer or agent express concern about reputational damage or lawsuits stemming from the defendant’s speech?
Was the arrest or investigation timed to coincide with the defendant’s legal filings or public statements?
Has this department previously faced allegations of retaliatory arrests or misuse of digital evidence?
Were any officers disciplined or investigated for their role in this case?
Did the prosecution disclose the March 30th website confirmation to the defense in a timely manner?
Was any exculpatory evidence withheld during pretrial proceedings?
Did the FBI disclose the full chain of custody and access logs for the devices?
Was the image used to justify the second warrant disclosed to the defense before the warrant was issued?
Did the government ever attempt to suppress or seal evidence that contradicted their narrative?
Cross examination Questions that need to be asked:
“Can you explain why you proceeded with a search after the warrant was quashed?”
“Did you inform the court that the website confirmed the defendant was not the poster?”
“Why did you wait nearly two years to obtain a federal warrant after accessing the devices?”
“Is it standard practice to use evidence obtained during an invalid search to justify a new warrant?”