How am I going to jail??

[Guest]

No, we've already answered your questions 100 times over... You refusing to accept the answers and repeating the questions endlessly just means you are autistic...

So your request to suck my dick has been denied

[admin]

YOU have yet to prove your shit...

[admin]

let me answer them for you:

1. Prove to me that the warrant wasn't a general warrant

The warrant was a general warrant because it did not particularize what was to be seized. instead, they seized everything on all 15 computers. The US Supreme has stated in 2014 that the wholesale seizure of all items are unconstitutional. The federal district court here in Illinois also confirmed that full seizure of all information on a digital device was unconstitutional

2. Prove to me that they had probable cause.

The state didn't have probable cause because they did NO INVESTIGATION the threat prior the seizure of the devices, or prior to the arrest. They didn't corroborate the anonymous tip, nor did they confirm if me or my computers was link to the threat prior the arrest or seizure, they eventually learned that my IP was not on that site at all, during the time frame of the threat.

3. Prove to me that it OK for the FBI to hang on to a computer for over a year before getting a warrant.

The computer seized the devices on April 11th, 2018, they found the computer-generated image a week after the charges were dismissed (April 16th). The FBI stopped the search to seek a second warrant. they wait over one year to get that warrant. The US Supreme Court has stated that waiting that long is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. When law enforcement or the government seeks a search warrant it is time sensitive and law enforcement must act quickly to secure the search warrant.

4. Prove to me that computer generated images are illegal.

Computer generated images are legal the US Supreme Court has stated that computer generated images, that is images created by using a program on a computer is not only legal but constitutionally protected speech unless its deemed OBSCENE. (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002, US v Williams 2008) Illinois Supreme Court has also stated that the material is not only legal but constitutionally protected speech unless its deemed OBSCENE. there is also the issue that people have the right to possess look at obscene material in the privacy of their home (Stanley v Georgia US SUPREME COURT1969)

So again prove me wrong

[Guest]

Repeating the same stuff endlessly is a sign of autism.

And all your questions have been answered dozens of times before

And you are just mad because you would be in jail now if not for your Mommy and Daddy

[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.

I think you misunderstand what a warrant is. A warrant is not only required for the seizing of the device, but they need a warrant to search, so even when the items are seized the warrant is and must remain valid for the search. If the warrant is quashed before it is search (which in this case it was), then the search is a warrantless search, and therefor unreasonable, thus unconstitutional.

[admin]

P.S. - because of those two brave teens, you have wasted 7 years of your life. Awesome!!

How can they be brave teens when they opening admitted to making the threatening post, Google and YouTube can be held liable because they destroyed evidence from a criminal case. Whoever told them to remove it (state or the FBI) is also liable for destroying evidence.

[admin]

BWAHAHAHA THIS MORON is basing his claim on a document that 1. is incorrect and more importantly 2. it's a report from the ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, which was giving invalid information giving to them by an FBI agent who incorrectly claimed it was real child porn and claimed it was a female, but according to the forensic specialist for the FBI it was indeed computer generated (virtual) of a BOY.

[admin]

All property seized must be returned to its rightful owner once the criminal proceedings have terminated. Cooper v. City of Greenwood , 904 F.2d 302, 304 (5th Cir. 1990) ; United States v. Farrell , 606 F.2d 1341, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ; United States v. LaFatch , 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977). When no charges are pending against an individual, any of the individual's property in the possession of the State should be immediately returned to him. See People v. Jaudon , 307 Ill. App. 3d 427, 447, 241 Ill.Dec. 76, 718 N.E.2d 647 (1999) (citing 725 ILCS 5/108-2 (West 1996) ); People v. Jackson , 26 Ill. App. 3d 845, 848-49, 326 N.E.2d 138 (1975). After criminal proceedings conclude, the government has no right to retain a defendant's property.  United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre , 264 F.3d 1195, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001). "t is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice process that property involved in the proceeding, against which no Government claim lies, be returned promptly to its rightful owner." United States v. Wilson , 540 F.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

People v. McCavitt, 438 Ill. Dec. 102, 109 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

[admin]

Here, there is no question that defendant had an expectation of privacy in his computer files before his computer was confiscated by police pursuant to the search warrant issued on July 17, 2013. See Heckenkamp , 482 F.3d at 1147 ; Broy , 209 F. Supp. 3d at 1053-55 ; Blair , 321 Ill. App. 3d at 381, 254 Ill.Dec. 872, 748 N.E.2d 318 (Homer, J., specially concurring). Defendant's expectation of privacy significantly diminished once the police took possession of the computer, and that diminished expectation of privacy continued until his trial was complete. See Burnette , 698 F.2d at 1049 ; Johnston , 789 F.3d at 942. However, once defendant's trial was over, defendant could again expect that he had a right to privacy in the contents of his computer. See United States v. Hubbard , 650 F.2d 293, 303 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("the party from whom materials are seized in the course of a criminal investigation retains a protectible [sic ] property interest in the seized materials" because he is entitled to their return when the criminal proceedings conclude); Thompson , 28 N.Y.S.3d at 259 (State's unreasonable retention of an individual's files violates the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy).

People v. McCavitt, 438 Ill. Dec. 102, 110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

[admin]

At the very least, the government should copy and return the equipment as soon as possible. See Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 816 F. Supp. 432, 437 (W.D.Tex.1993) (owner of electronic bulletin board had computers and disks seized; court found no valid reason why information sought could not be copied and equipment returned within hours), aff'd 36 F.3d 457 (5th cir.1994).

United States v. Hunter, 13 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Vt. 1998)