🐮 Lolcow Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot - Domestic terrorist, ham radio sperg, self-described hikikomori, confirmed pedophile

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dirty Harry said:
Of course today's rant is that "Kiwifarms just doesn't understand it was a general warrant".. so the same repetitive shit... For someone who claims "he doesn't care what Kiwifarms thinks", he sure does obsess a lot with KiwiFarms.
Click to expand...
It's just his desperate cope using words he doesn't understand. General warrants are unconstitutional. There's nothing remotely general about that warrant.
 
This is Todd's logic:
60ce17b29e15d.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dirty Harry said:
Todd Daugherty is the gift that keeps giving. So much for his claim that the current charge was only one image and not child porn under the law.

I think Todd is now bragging about his child pedophilia.

View attachment 6035595
Click to expand...
That affidavit also states that there is more than one nude image unlike what Todd wants to claim and that only one of those is where the child is not nude. This is a real victim, not a cartoon character and the photos were taken around 2012. If this a family member as it usually is, it's likely Lucy, Jeromy's daughter.
 
Last edited:
...and it is the first warrant that was a general warrant, because it did not clearly define the specific files or types of data sought. It does not limit the search to relevant timeframes, specific keywords, or particular applications connected to the alleged crime. Instead, it was overly broad and lacks the necessary specificity required for digital searches under the Fourth Amendment.
 
N9OGL said:
...and it is the first warrant that was a general warrant, because it did not clearly define the specific files or types of data sought. It does not limit the search to relevant timeframes, specific keywords, or particular applications connected to the alleged crime. Instead, it was overly broad and lacks the necessary specificity required for digital searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...
Neck yourself.
 
N9OGL said:
...and it is the first warrant that was a general warrant, because it did not clearly define the specific files or types of data sought. It does not limit the search to relevant timeframes, specific keywords, or particular applications connected to the alleged crime. Instead, it was overly broad and lacks the necessary specificity required for digital searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...
It looks like in the affidavit they found exactly what they were looking for you sick fuck. Enjoy your prison prolapse Todd, it’s the only thing you’ll be getting inside when they lock you up.
 
mydadtucksmeinmysleep said:
It looks like in the affidavit they found exactly what they were looking for you sick fuck. Enjoy your prison prolapse Todd, it’s the only thing you’ll be getting inside when they lock you up.
Click to expand...
Again that was second warrant, which was a federal warrant. The state of Illinois (which is charging me) is using the first warrant which was a state warrant, which had NOTHING to do with child porn at all. If you think so, so me in the first warrant where they were looking for child porn. The first warrant has NOTHING to do with child porn but had to do with a threat against a school, a threat I did NOT POST!

The first warrant that had nothing to do with child porn but a threat against a school was 1. a general warrant 2. was dismissed by the judge, prior the discovery of child porn.
 
That’s not going to hold up in court Todd. The prosecutor is throwing the book at you and your PD is stepping out of the way to let it hit your fat dysgenic face. You’re fucked figuratively and you will be literally fucked in county. Best start training that asshole sweetlips.
 
mydadtucksmeinmysleep said:
That’s not going to hold up in court Todd. The prosecutor is throwing the book at you and your PD is stepping out of the way to let it hit your fat dysgenic face. You’re fucked figuratively and you will be literally fucked in county. Best start training that asshole sweetlips.
Click to expand...
We've told him that but he's too stupid to understand. They have enough on him to land him a few decades in jail. Given that this is a real girl and likely family all of the white people in prison who find out about him will target him for beatings and probably even stab him. He has a terrible attitude so he wont be able to group up with other pedos for protection either. The Blacks and other criminals of colour will target him just because he's a lone autistic white man.

And they will find out Todd, no one here or any of your trolls will have to do a thing because your cellmate will tell you to hand them your papers. They'll probably even ask to get you removed so they have nothing to do with you.
 
Nope, you are wrong, search warrants for a computer must specify a file or files the first warrant did not, it seized everything.
there are actually court cases that back this.

United States v. Kow (1995) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a search warrant that authorized the seizure of virtually all business records without describing specific items to be seized. The court emphasized that warrants must particularly describe the items to be seized and must not be overly broad. "By failing to describe with any particularity the things to be seized, the warrant is indistinguishable from the general warrants repeatedly held by the framers of the Fourth Amendment to be intolerable."

United States v. Otero (2009) - The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found a search warrant invalid because it failed to limit the search to specific types of data. The court stressed the need for a warrant to include particular descriptions of the types of files and data to be searched. "The warrant lacked any description or guidance on the specific files or types of data to be searched and seized, leading to an overbroad search."

United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (2009) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government must waive reliance on the plain view doctrine when searching electronically stored information. This case highlighted the need for specificity and proper protocols when searching computers to prevent overbroad searches. "Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases."

United States v. Galpin (2013) - The Second Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a search warrant that allowed for the search and seizure of all computer files without specificity. The court held that computer search warrants must be specific about the types of files sought. "The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This requirement is especially important in the context of digital searches."

United States v. Rosa (2010) - The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found a warrant deficient for failing to describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. This case further supports the necessity for specificity in search warrants, particularly for digital data. "The warrant’s broad language permitted the government to seize virtually every document on the computer, making it a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anonymus Fluhre said:
No, not yet. We have had cows die in prison though.
Click to expand...
Illinois has one of the highest gang populations, if he goes to state prison do you think he’ll be turned into someone’s bitch or stabbed outright? While bleeding to death is a realistically fitting end for a cretin such as Todd I don’t find it a fulfilling punishment in the long term.
 
mydadtucksmeinmysleep said:
Illinois has one of the highest gang populations, if he goes to state prison do you think he’ll be turned into someone’s bitch or stabbed outright? While bleeding to death is a realistically fitting end for a cretin such as Todd I don’t find it a fulfilling punishment in the long term.
Click to expand...
Either is pretty likely. No whites are going to take him to protect him given what he's done. Non whites wont care and will just see him as a piece of meat to abuse because he'll be alone. When he's thrown in jail he wont live to see 60. He's autistic, has mental health issues on top of that, and will be a registered sex offender who prayed on children under the age of 13. He's going to end up like the ones who end up in the Max in Saskatchewan except in his prison the prisoners wont have to start a riot to get to him to stab him.
 
There is also:

Riley v. California (2014) - Although focused on cell phones, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for particularity in digital searches. "Modern cell phones... hold for many Americans the privacies of life... they are based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago."

United States v. Payton (2007) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a warrant because it was overly broad and did not specify the types of electronic data to be seized. This case specifically addressed the need for particularity in computer search warrants. "The warrant lacked the necessary particularity and authorized a general, exploratory rummaging in the digital data."

United States v. Tamura (1982) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized the need for narrow and specific search warrants, particularly when dealing with large volumes of documents. This case is often cited in discussions about the overbreadth of search warrants and the need for particularity. "If the government is to seize records, it must describe them with as much precision as the circumstances allow, and it must take care to minimize intrusions on legitimate privacy interests."

Orin S. Kerr, "Searches and Seizures in a Digital World," Harvard Law Review, 2005 - This article discusses the challenges and legal principles surrounding searches and seizures of digital data. Provides a comprehensive analysis of the particularity requirement in the context of digital searches. "The particularity requirement is designed to prevent general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings, and is especially pertinent in the digital age."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom