Quote:And no, future evidence can not retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story.
They could continue their investigation, but not on me. The probable cause they had went away. if they wanted to continue their investigation on me, they would have to have new probable cause, they could no longer use the old probable cause.
Quote:It is on the defendant to ask for a copy. I can't help it if you or your parents didn't.
Police are required to give you a copy of the search warrant, they did not.
Quote:And no, future evidence cannot retroactively change the "probable cause" for the date it was issued, it's simply a new ruling that probable cause is no longer in effect but no error in the part of the prosecution as the judge declared it to be probable. As the court records say, the investigation could continue, and you even admitted as such endlessly on KiwiFarms and your own forums. It's proof that you have changed your story.
Yeah, it can. If new evidence is shows that probable cause is weak, it has to be brought to the judge's attention. If there is evidence that the officer lied or left factual material out on the affidavit for the warrant, it too has to be brought to the judge's attention. What the warrant didn't say:
It does not state that the website Hateandflame.com allows for anonymous posting and impersonation. This is a critical omission, as it completely undermines the claim that the username "N90GL" is conclusive proof of identity. The State's own documents later admit to this fact.
It does not state that the police had not yet obtained the IP address or any other electronic records from the website to verify the tip. This is a fundamental flaw, as getting the IP address is a standard procedure for this type of investigation. The affidavit presents the tip as a solid fact, when in reality it was an uncorroborated lead.
It does not mention that a full investigation would have revealed that the posts continued after Mr. Daugherty's arrest, making it physically impossible for him to be the author. While this may have been discovered after the affidavit was sworn, the fact that the officer didn't seek this information before the warrant application is a key point.
The officer who had only been a cop for a year left out of No mention of training in digital forensics, internet investigations, or cyber attribution. In fact that why they got the FBI involved, because NONE of them do.