How am I going to jail??

[admin]

The totality of circumstances is a legal analysis method that considers all relevant information in a case to make decisions, rather than relying on a single factor or bright-line rule. It can be used in a variety of legal situations but is most commonly used in criminal procedure to determine probable cause for an arrest or search.

[admin]

https://casetext.com/case/in-matter-of-uss-application

[admin]

B. The Fourth Amendment Prohibits General Searches

The instant warrant application cannot be squared with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on general searches. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance of any warrant except one "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV). As the Supreme Court noted:
[t]he manifest purpose of this particularity requirement was to prevent general searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.
Id. This understanding of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement broke no new ground. Indeed, sixty years before Maryland v. Garrison was decided, the Supreme Court recognized general searches were long deemed to violate the Constitution. Marron v. U.S., 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927).
The Fourth Amendment's particularity provision was enacted to respond to the evils of general warrants and writs of assistance which English judges had employed against the colonists. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 169 (2008). As the Supreme Court stated:

The practice had obtained in the colonies of issuing writs of assistance to the revenue officers, empowering them, in their discretion, to search suspected places for smuggled goods, which James Otis pronounced "the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book;" since they placed "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer."
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 625 (1886) (internal footnotes omitted). The requirement was thus designed to ensure only a specific place is searched and that probable cause to search that place actually exists. See Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 501-02 (1925).
Here, the government seeks permission to search every bit of data contained in each digital device seized from Mr. Cunnius' residence. Contrary to the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement limiting searches to only the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the government seeks to scour everything contained in the digital devices and information outside of the digital devices. This practice is akin to the revenue officers in colonial days who scoured "suspected places" pursuant to a general warrant.

In Matter of U.S.'S Application, Case No. MJ 11-55, 7-8 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2011)

[admin]

The Court has considered the fact that the search warrant application seeks permission to search and seize evidence of the specified crimes, and a second warrant would be needed to seize evidence of other crimes for which there is no probable cause shown. However, the ability to seek a second warrant after finding evidence as to which there was no probable cause to search only magnifies the danger of the warrant constituting a general warrant.

The requirement that a second warrant be obtained provides no meaningful limitation on the scope of the search conducted under the first warrant and no meaningful protection against the government obtaining evidence for which it lacks probable cause. For the first warrant would be nothing more than a "vehicle to gain access to data for which the government has no probable cause to collect."

In Matter of U.S.'S Application, Case No. MJ 11-55, 8 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2011)

[admin]

E. The Fourth Amendment and Use of "Hash Values"

The instant warrant search protocol also purports to authorize the government to use hash values to perform the search. The government's proposed use of hash values does not necessarily narrow the scope of the search requested. Specifically, although "hash values" can be used to exclude files that do not interest the government such as a digital device's operating system, they can also be used to search and find evidence outside the scope of the warrant automatically and systematically. This is because most law-enforcement forensic software can automatically search for evidence of other crimes, such as child pornography, based on known hash values. See United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d 779, 783-84 (7th Cir. 2010) (detective ignored warrant limitations and conducted general search using Forensic Tool Kit (FTK) and its accompanying "KFF alert system" to locate child pornography).

The instant warrant application proposes to use "hash values," but contained no restrictions on that use, allowing the government to search for evidence of crime for which is lacks probable cause, such as child pornography. Moreover, the warrant affidavit does not demonstrate "hash values" exist that can be used to ferret out the evidence for which the government has probable cause in this case

In Matter of U.S.'S Application, Case No. MJ 11-55, 23-24 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 11, 2011)

[admin]

You’re either misinformed or intentionally misrepresenting the facts. There was no imminent threat because—legally and factually—I did not make the post.

Let me break it down for you:

1. I was arrested without investigation—on an anonymous tip that was later discredited by the website itself.
   
2. I was in custody when more posts appeared in my name—a physical impossibility if I were the author.
   
3. The hosting site confirmed I never accessed it.
   
4. The original warrant was quashed, and charges were dropped.
   

You're clinging to a narrative that’s been dismantled by both the facts and the law. Saying something louder online doesn’t make it truer in court.

If you're going to pretend to care about justice, start with the truth—not with recycled accusations that have already been debunked.

[admin]

Because none of those 5 things you mentioned are not true plus you consented to the search continuing in April 2018. That's why the warrant was quashed as they needed to no longer seize any more computer devices. Did you notice the judge never ordered the items to be returned to you, and you didn't ask until at least 2021.

Oh, you'll see.... You said the same thing in 2015 and 2018..... 2026 is coming.

There was no consent, even the FBI admit to a federal judge that they had those computers under a state warrant. meaning they had those computers not under consent but under a warrant that again was a general warrant, and it was later quashed. The argument that the judge allowed the government to continue their investigation doesn't mean they have consent for two reasons 1. a judge can't order consent; it has to be given by the owner. that consent must be a sign document stating the owner of the devices are allowing the search of the devices. 2. they didn't have probable cause. To get consent or even a warrant you have to have probable cause. The state admitted in their 2018 motion to dismiss that they no longer had probable cause. So, yeah this who thing now shouldn't really be happening, what they did was illegal and them (the state) continuing to fight it shows that the state has no remorse for violating someone's constitutional rights.

[admin]

Because none of those 5 things you mentioned are not true plus you consented to the search continuing in April 2018. That's why the warrant was quashed as they needed to no longer seize any more computer devices. Did you notice the judge never ordered the items to be returned to you, and you didn't ask until at least 2021.

Oh, you'll see.... You said the same thing in 2015 and 2018..... 2026 is coming.

..and FYI ALL FIVE OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE. There are actual documents from the courts, state, police, and FBI to back it up. The idea that I made all this up is ONLY thing that is true.

[admin]

You realize that "motion to dismiss" are almost always filed as routine procedure.

it's a motion to suppress and a motion for a Franks Hearing.

[admin]

And all kinds of school activities happen on Friday afternoon and nights...

Immanent threat and probable cause. But doesn't matter because you consented to the computer searches when you got released in April 2018.

Those teens on that youtube video are heroes. Because of them, we know for certain you are a pedophile who downloads child pornography.

Maybe if you didn't lie to the police and continue to make threats on Twitter, who knows..... Oh well,  you know it all.

Not at an elementary school it doesn't, not in this town.