03-07-2025, 06:46 AM
Probable cause or reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on an anonymous tip that merely provides the static details of a suspect's life along with an allegation of criminal conduct. (People v Yarber, 279 Ill.app.3d 519,529 (1996) The tip in my case was anonymous and based solely on material that was publicly available. In United State v Lopez, 907 F.3d 472, 482 (7th Cir 2018) "When a tipster is unknown officers "must conduct and rely upon independent investigation to corroborate a tip before seizing a person" The police in my case did not conduct an independent investigation to corroborate the tip, I was simply arrested. It also didn't help that the tipster who claimed to be in the United States, but their IP address was coming from France via a TOR node. Meaning the tipster may have not been truthful and the police did not know who that person was. "Although the police confirmed that the user posting the threat was using Daugherty name, likeness and callsign, this was all publicly available static information." Illinois v Daugherty (Motion to Suppress 2024)
"The questionable value of the publicly available information in linking him to the account was further diminished by the affidavit's references to the fact that Daugherty told police he did not post on the site and was being "set up" by someone who was trying to have his ham radio license suspended by the FCC. The other information in the affidavit was merely gratuitous information about Daugherty's past conviction, for an unrelated threat on law enforcement and does nothing to establish a reliable link between him and the threatening post." (Illinois v Daugherty Motion to Suppress 2024)
"Here, similarly, while the post had Daugherty's name, call sign, and photograph, all that information was publicly available. A simple check of the website logs could (and in fact later did) confirm whether there was a possibility that someone else was behind the post especially given the statement by Daugherty that he was being set up. Similarly, while probable cause, like authentication, is not a high bar; it does impose some requirements of due diligence on the part of the government before they obtain a warrant to conduct a search of every electronic device in someone's home. Simply restating information posted on a website, like www.hateandflame.com, and asserting they were done by someone who denies posting them is not enough. This is especially true where the affidavit contains no information about what credentials an individual must supply in order to access the website, what the policies on impersonating others are, or how they are enforced." (Motion to Suppress, Illinois v Daugherty 2024)
"The questionable value of the publicly available information in linking him to the account was further diminished by the affidavit's references to the fact that Daugherty told police he did not post on the site and was being "set up" by someone who was trying to have his ham radio license suspended by the FCC. The other information in the affidavit was merely gratuitous information about Daugherty's past conviction, for an unrelated threat on law enforcement and does nothing to establish a reliable link between him and the threatening post." (Illinois v Daugherty Motion to Suppress 2024)
"Here, similarly, while the post had Daugherty's name, call sign, and photograph, all that information was publicly available. A simple check of the website logs could (and in fact later did) confirm whether there was a possibility that someone else was behind the post especially given the statement by Daugherty that he was being set up. Similarly, while probable cause, like authentication, is not a high bar; it does impose some requirements of due diligence on the part of the government before they obtain a warrant to conduct a search of every electronic device in someone's home. Simply restating information posted on a website, like www.hateandflame.com, and asserting they were done by someone who denies posting them is not enough. This is especially true where the affidavit contains no information about what credentials an individual must supply in order to access the website, what the policies on impersonating others are, or how they are enforced." (Motion to Suppress, Illinois v Daugherty 2024)