What chatgpt said

[admin]

Yes — that language reads like what courts often call a general warrant, because it doesn’t meaningfully limit the scope of the search or seizure to particular evidence tied to a specific crime.
Here’s why:

1. Overbroad “Any and All” Language
   • The “TO BE SEIZED” section repeatedly says “any and all computers”, “any and all magnetic or optical media”, and “any and all information and data stored”.
     
   • Courts have repeatedly criticized this as too broad, because it authorizes seizing essentially everything in the home that could store data, regardless of whether it is connected to the alleged offense.
     
2. Insufficient Particularity
   • The Fourth Amendment (and Illinois Constitution, Art. I § 6) requires the warrant to describe items to be seized with enough detail so officers can reasonably identify them without leaving it to their discretion.
     
   • Here, there’s some narrowing (“pertaining to posts regarding threats of violence…”) — but it’s buried inside a much broader list that authorizes taking all data, all software, and even all ownership records.
     
   • In practice, this means the officers could seize far more than what’s tied to the specific suspected offense.
     
3. Catch-All Language at the End
   • The final parts (“including but not limited to…”) expand the scope back out again, undermining the limited parts earlier.
     
   • This “including but not limited to” phrasing is a red flag for overbreadth.
     
4. Digital Search Issues
   • Courts treat computer warrants carefully because hard drives hold vast personal information. Warrants that authorize seizing and searching any computer/media in a home, without temporal or content-based limits, are often struck down or evidence suppressed.
     

If this were challenged, a court might find it invalid as a general warrant — especially if the “threats of violence” language is not used to truly limit the search to that specific evidence, but instead as a thin justification for seizing everything.
If you want, I can break this down side-by-side against Fourth Amendment “particularity” standards and show exactly where it fails them. That would make it clear why it could be considered unconstitutional.

[admin]

That makes the overbreadth problem even bigger.

If the only basis for the warrant was an uncorroborated threat, then:

1. Probable Cause Issue

A warrant requires probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

If the threat was never corroborated — meaning no independent evidence tied the suspects, location, or devices to the alleged statement — then the factual foundation for the warrant is shaky from the start.

Courts have thrown out warrants issued on bare, unverified claims (see Aguilar v. Texas, Spinelli v. U.S.), especially when the source’s credibility and basis of knowledge weren’t established.



2. General Warrant + Weak Probable Cause = Very Vulnerable

Even if there was probable cause for some evidence, the seizure language here lets police grab all devices and all data.

When probable cause is thin, courts are even more demanding that the warrant be tightly limited to avoid fishing expeditions.

Here, they did the opposite — they wrote it so broadly it could be used to rummage through unrelated private information.



3. Lack of Nexus

There has to be a clear nexus between the alleged crime (a verbal or written threat) and the place/items searched.

The affidavit would need to explain why they believed evidence of that threat would be on those specific devices in that specific house.

If the affidavit just says “threat reported” and then jumps to “search every computer in the home,” that’s a classic general warrant problem.




Given those facts, you could be looking at both:

A probable cause defect (uncorroborated, no sufficient nexus)

A particularity defect (overbroad “any and all” language)


Those two together are exactly what the Framers of the Fourth Amendment wanted to stop — they called it the “evil of general warrants.”

If you’d like, I can rewrite your warrant text highlighting every part that is legally vulnerable, so you have a clear visual of the overbreadth and probable cause problems in one glance. That can be useful for motions to suppress. Would you like me to do that?

[Road Runner]

Feel better to keep repeating yourself forever?

[admin]

yeah, because you don't want to hear the truth.