Something

[admin]

Back in September of last year, we filed our motion to suppress. The state initially stated they were going to file a response, but the response date was delayed twice due to snow. At the last court hearing, the state mentioned they wouldn't file a written response but would present it orally. The only oral argument they made was that their view of the motion to dismiss (2018 case) differed from ours, and they wanted the judge to clarify it. On April 8th, they plan to discuss this further, with the main hearing on April 24th. Notably, during the January 11th hearing, the state didn't mention anything else regarding the motion to suppress, including the issue of the warrant being a general warrant. (It's important to note that dismissal and a general warrant are two different issues.)

[admin]

The state is only looking at the warrant being quashed there is however other issues including the lack of probable cause, the warrant being a general warrant, the second warrant being issued 1 year, 10 months, 5 days after they found the material, longer than what the courts has said is permissible under law. There also the issue of the fact that the first image which is what they found and is using was computer generated, the state claims the image they found wasn't but according to the FBI agent that found it, it was.