you keep making these claims, yet you seem to not show any evidence to prove your claim, meaning this is nothing more than a troll and I am not going to lose any sleep over this.
they have to have these four things to arrest me again:
1. Independent, Fresh Probable Cause: Under the Fourth Amendment, police must possess trustworthy facts and concrete, verifiable evidence leading a reasonable person to believe a new crime has actually been committed.
2. A Signed Warrant or Fresh On-Scene Evidence: They either need a new warrant signed by a judge based on sworn, reliable evidence, or direct observation of a crime in progress. Anonymous online reports or troll allegations do not meet this standard.
3. No Re-Using Suppressed Evidence: Any evidence quashed by the judge in my dismissed case is permanently off-limits. They cannot re-package old, suppressed files to justify a new arrest without violating the constitutional prohibition against unlawful searches and double jeopardy.
4. A Detainable Offense Under Illinois Law: Under the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, even if someone is arrested, prosecutors cannot automatically hold them in jail. To detain someone pretrial, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence at a formal court hearing that the person committed a specific detainable offense and poses a direct, real threat.
Finally, a quick note: The images on the computer were never deemed Child porn or contraband by a judge, the images weren't suppressed, the computer as whole were suppressed because the search was unlawful to begin with. That structural distinction is critical under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and it leaves the state with zero legal defense. When a court grants a motion to suppress based on an illegal search, the primary violation was the unlawful seizure of the containers (the computers) themselves. Because the judge ruled the search itself was unconstitutional from the start, the court never reached the merits of what was on the drives, nor did it declare any file or image to be contraband. Legally, no contraband was ever adjudicated to exist. When a warrant was quashed, the legal justification for seizing the hardware disappears retroactively. The state cannot point to specific files inside a device to justify retaining the physical device when the initial taking of the device was ruled illegal. Under Illinois law (725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)), a granted motion to suppress explicitly mandates that "the property shall be restored". The state cannot bypass a court ruling suppressing the physical hardware by inventing a post-hoc, administrative "contraband inspection" process.
they have to have these four things to arrest me again:
1. Independent, Fresh Probable Cause: Under the Fourth Amendment, police must possess trustworthy facts and concrete, verifiable evidence leading a reasonable person to believe a new crime has actually been committed.
2. A Signed Warrant or Fresh On-Scene Evidence: They either need a new warrant signed by a judge based on sworn, reliable evidence, or direct observation of a crime in progress. Anonymous online reports or troll allegations do not meet this standard.
3. No Re-Using Suppressed Evidence: Any evidence quashed by the judge in my dismissed case is permanently off-limits. They cannot re-package old, suppressed files to justify a new arrest without violating the constitutional prohibition against unlawful searches and double jeopardy.
4. A Detainable Offense Under Illinois Law: Under the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, even if someone is arrested, prosecutors cannot automatically hold them in jail. To detain someone pretrial, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence at a formal court hearing that the person committed a specific detainable offense and poses a direct, real threat.
Finally, a quick note: The images on the computer were never deemed Child porn or contraband by a judge, the images weren't suppressed, the computer as whole were suppressed because the search was unlawful to begin with. That structural distinction is critical under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and it leaves the state with zero legal defense. When a court grants a motion to suppress based on an illegal search, the primary violation was the unlawful seizure of the containers (the computers) themselves. Because the judge ruled the search itself was unconstitutional from the start, the court never reached the merits of what was on the drives, nor did it declare any file or image to be contraband. Legally, no contraband was ever adjudicated to exist. When a warrant was quashed, the legal justification for seizing the hardware disappears retroactively. The state cannot point to specific files inside a device to justify retaining the physical device when the initial taking of the device was ruled illegal. Under Illinois law (725 ILCS 5/114-12(b)), a granted motion to suppress explicitly mandates that "the property shall be restored". The state cannot bypass a court ruling suppressing the physical hardware by inventing a post-hoc, administrative "contraband inspection" process.
