Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

What happens when surveillance grows faster than the law meant to restrain it? In this episode, Justin sits down with Paul Avelar, attorney at the Institute for Justice, to unpack how modern surveillance technologies, especially automatic license plate reader cameras, are reshaping privacy, constitutional rights, and the balance of power between citizens and the government. From quiet local contracts to nationwide databases, this conversation reveals how systems built in the name of safety can quietly become tools of pervasive tracking.Key Moments:How license plate reader cameras work and what happens with the data they collectThe lack of transparency and oversight at the city and state levelReal-world examples of surveillance abuse and misuse by those in powerWhy this issue cuts across political lines and demands bipartisan reformWhat solutions could actually protect privacy without abandoning public safetyThis episode challenges the assumption that surveillance is only a problem for criminals or future administrations we don't trust. It asks listeners to reconsider how much privacy is lost when data is collected indefinitely, shared broadly, and used without probable cause. If you care about constitutional rights, government accountability, civil liberties, or simply the idea of being left alone in a free society, this conversation is essential listening.Tune in to hear these hard-hitting questions. The answers are vital because they affect us all.Follow Justin and the pod: @truthbefoundpodcastLink to Justin's agency, AIA: https://azprivateinvestigator.com/Institute for Justice: https://ij.org/About the Fourth Amendment work: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/

This week, we saw two federal appellate courts weigh in on the Second Amendment rights of people in the country unlawfully. The opinions covered a variety of positions on the question. Of course, they aren't the first courts to address the issue, and it's only become a more common challenge in the wake of 2022's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. So, to dissect the state of the legal debate, we have Seattle University of Law professor Alan Mygatt-Tauber on the show. He has a law review article set to publish early next year that examines the state of the fight over undocumented immigrants and guns, as well as weighing in on the different arguments. Mygatt-Tauber said he's read every Second Amendment challenge to the illegal immigrant gun ban since Bruen was handed down. He said the most common outcome was a court holding that undocumented immigrants are part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, but upholding the gun ban as consistent with America's tradition of gun regulation. Then there were courts that determined they aren't protected by the Second Amendment at all. Finally, the least common holding was that they are protected, and the law is unconstitutional. He noted that the Sixth and Tenth Circuit holdings were both in the first category, but one included a notable, lengthy dissent explaining why all non-citizens don't enjoy Second, First, or Fourth Amendment rights. He noted that, even though he belives its the most accurate position, no court has yet held illegal immigrants are entitled to Second Amendment rights and the law barring them from possessing guns is unconstitutional. Special Guest: Alan Mygatt-Tauber.

Can Police Still Search Your Car for the Smell of Marijuana?Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen discuss the “plain smell” doctrine—a hot topic in criminal procedure, especially with all the changes surrounding marijuana laws in Ohio. They walk you through what cops can and can't do during a traffic stop when they detect the scent of marijuana, explaining how the Fourth Amendment and recent legal changes affect searches, privacy rights, and law enforcement actions.Together, they break down the evolution from the days when the mere odor of marijuana was enough for a search, to today's more complex landscape where medical and even recreational use of marijuana has changed the legal calculus. They explain how “probable cause” is no longer as simple as it used to be, why the plain smell doctrine isn't as clear-cut, and what this means for drivers, law enforcement, and anyone interested in constitutional rights.If you've ever wondered how legalization affects your rights on the road—or if you just enjoy following the ever-changing world of criminal law—this is an episode you won't want to miss. Moments00:00 "Fourth Amendment and Automotive Exception"03:55 Ohio's Plain Smell Doctrine Explained08:06 "Probable Cause and Police Inquiry"10:45 "Law and Society Evolving"Here are 3 key takeaways:The “Plain Smell Doctrine” Isn't What It Used To Be: The once-clear rule that the odor of marijuana gave police probable cause to search your car is now muddy in Ohio and other states with legalized cannabis. Police must consider if there's a legal reason for the odor before jumping to conclusions.Legalization Shifts the Burden: With legal medical and recreational marijuana, officers should now do more investigating before deciding to search. Simply smelling marijuana isn't enough—they need facts pointing toward illegality.Know Your Rights: If you're ever pulled over and marijuana is involved, you aren't required to answer all questions. Like Steve Palmer emphasized, politely exercising your right to remain silent could matter more than ever as courts adapt to new laws.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm...

Lionel's Ventilation Friday is the show where unfiltered truth meets sharp analysis, promising an exciting, wacky, and fun night. Forget "stationality"—host Lionel insists on authenticity while tackling everything from major legal cases (Fourth Amendment, probable cause, exclusionary rule, Casey Anthony, Diddy) to bizarre behaviors like hibristophilia. Lionel confronts political hot buttons (DEI, AI executive orders), dissects media bias ("Missing White Woman Syndrome"), and analyzes why the system collapses "If Everyone Pled Not Guilty". Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join the conversation for sharp analysis of major legal cases, including deep dives into Fourth Amendment issues, probable cause, and the exclusionary rule. Lionel dissects notorious trials like Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin, and the Diddy case, providing insight into why proving homicide or securing convictions can be complicated. Explore bizarre human behaviors, such as hibristophilia—the sexual attraction and arousal toward individuals who have committed heinous crimes—and the desire to "nurture a damaged individual" or seek fame by proxy. Lionel also tackles current political and social controversies, from the President's AI executive order to debating the rhetoric surrounding white privilege and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ready to find out what's really at stake in the suppression hearing?Welcome back to Lawyer Talk, where we go off the record but stay on the air. In this episode, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen dive deep into the suppression hearing in the high-profile case of Luigi Mangione—the man accused of shooting Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare.Together, they break down not just what happened during Mangione's arrest at a Pennsylvania McDonald's, but also the crucial legal arguments taking shape around his constitutional rights. Was Mangione truly “in custody” when police cornered and questioned him? Did officers follow Miranda protocols, or did they overstep? What about the search of his backpack, which uncovered a manifesto and firearm—was that lawful, or a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights?From the nuances of custodial interrogation to the exceptions that allow police searches without a warrant, Steve Palmer brings his 30 years of criminal defense experience to the table, while Troy Henricksen offers insightful questions and analysis from a law student's perspective. Whether you're a legal aficionado or just intrigued by courtroom drama, this episode gives you a front-row seat to the arguments and strategies that could shape the outcome of one of the country's biggest cases.Moments00:00 Police Violations of Constitutional Rights03:34 "Luigi's Suppression Hearing Details"09:07 Mangione's Freedom Questioned10:03 "Police-Controlled Environment Analysis"16:22 "Suppressed Statements Impact Cases"17:32 "Miranda Rights and Custodial Interrogation"22:24 "Wingspan Search Exception Debate"26:02 "Terrorism Charges Dropped"27:49 "Inventory Search Exception Explained"30:24 "Search Validity Debate in Court"33:15 "Legal Insights and Q&A"Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Peter Van Valkenburgh is the Executive Director of Coin Center, a leading nonprofit research and advocacy group focused on cryptocurrency policy. In this episode, Peter joins The Bitcoin Frontier to explore why defending the right to self-custody is about much more than bitcoin — it's about the future of individual freedom, open-source innovation, and financial privacy. We dig into the parallels between the 1990s “crypto wars” and today's digital sovereignty battles, the threats facing developers of privacy tools, and the constitutional foundations for privacy and property in the digital age.SUPPORT THE PODCAST: → Subscribe → Leave a review → Share the show with your friends and family → Send us an email: podcast@unchained.com → Learn more about Unchained: https://unchained.com/?utm_source=you... → Book a free call with a bitcoin expert: https://unchained.com/consultation?ut...TIMESTAMPS:0:00 – Intro and Peter's journey from acting to bitcoin policy2:00 – Discovering the cypherpunks and the roots of internet freedom4:00 – Entering bitcoin through law school and meeting Jerry Brito6:00 – Founding Coin Center and defining “permissionless innovation”9:00 – The mission: protecting the freedom to build and use open blockchains11:00 – Bitcoin's privacy problem and the legal risks of building privacy tech13:00 – Educating DC: explaining bitcoin to Congress in the early days16:00 – Navigating the SEC, ICOs, and defining what counts as a security18:30 – The evolution from education to constitutional litigation22:00 – Bitcoin as the revival of a “bearer instrument” economy26:00 – The “secret right to cash” and the Fourth Amendment's blind spot30:00 – Privacy, property, and what bitcoin reveals about constitutional limits35:00 – The Keep Your Coins Act and why it matters for financial sovereignty43:00 – The DOJ's shift toward prosecuting developers — and why it's dangerous46:00 – Inside the Tornado Cash and Samurai Wallet prosecutions50:00 – How Coin Center is fighting for software publishing rights54:00 – Legislative progress: Clarity, Keep Your Coins, and BRCA1:00:00 – Lessons from the 1990s encryption wars1:03:00 – How liability protections shaped (and centralized) the internet1:08:00 – The convenience dilemma: why self-custody must become easier1:12:00 – The Bank Secrecy Act, mass surveillance, and new legal challenges1:19:00 – Coin Center's constitutional lawsuits for privacy and association rights1:23:00 – Why the BSA is ripe for reform — and bitcoin's role in that debate1:27:00 – Zero-knowledge proofs, AML, and a future of privacy-preserving compliance1:29:00 – How self-custody wallets enable digital identity and personal sovereignty1:31:00 – Closing thoughts: bitcoin as the foundation for a freer digital futureWHERE TO FOLLOW US: → Unchained X: https://x.com/unchained → Unchained LinkedIn:   / unchainedcom  → Unchained Newsletter: https://unchained.com/newsletter → Joe Kelly's Twitter: https://x.com/josephkelly → Peter Van Valkenburgh's Twitter: https://x.com/valkenburgh 

ICE and Border Patrol are kidnapping people in the suburbs near New Orleans based on racial profiling—it's like the South of 70 years ago. Mini Greg Bovino cares far more about his video team capturing him menacing and harassing people going about their lives than he does about due process and the Fourth Amendment. But despite her own pinup-style social media spreads, Trump may be readying to dump Kristi Noem from DHS. Meanwhile, the administration keeps creating new excuses for why it killed the two shipwrecked men near Venezuela, while also withholding key information. Plus, Trump is handing out more welfare checks to farmers, MTG says MAGA is not America First, the Dems get another shot this week on the affordability issue, Colin Allred may have been unwisely pushed out of the Texas Senate race, and Tim and Bill share a rare ‘you gotta hand it to Ted Cruz' moment. Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller. show notes Adrian's scoop on how Trump may be moving on from Noem Tim's 'Bulwark Take' on the protests and raids in greater NOLA Bill's "Bulwark on Sunday" with Sen. Warner on the boat strikes Monday's "Morning Shots" Cruz's good tweet 

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdf

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdf

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hawk sits down with his bestie - trial attorney and olive oil entrepreneur Shaana for an unfiltered conversation about the Supreme Court's shadow docket abuse, particularly the Texas gerrymandering case that enables racial discrimination in voting. The discussion covers how SCOTUS is dismantling constitutional protections through emergency rulings without oral arguments or proper opinions, leaving lower court judges with no guidance.The conversation shifts to Pam Bondi's tenure as Attorney General, examining her qualified background as Florida AG from 2010-2018 alongside her failures to investigate Jeffrey Epstein during that period. Despite her credentials, Bondi's DOJ has faced multiple grand jury rejections and court losses, including failed prosecutions and the spectacular dismissal of cases against James Comey and Letitia James.Hawk and Shaana analyze Justice Kavanaugh's concerning concurrence that carved out Fourth Amendment exceptions for ICE stops based solely on race and ethnicity. They explore how the current Supreme Court lacks the intellectual rigor of predecessors like Scalia, with justices like Alito producing poorly reasoned opinions while Thomas and Alito cherry-pick historical context to justify predetermined outcomes.The discussion touches on Supreme Court ethics violations, including Clarence Thomas's unreported gifts and Samuel Alito's luxury vacations from donors with business before the court. They examine how there are no ethics codes governing Supreme Court justices while state court judges face stringent rules. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole- Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Podcasts RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Ever wondered where a traffic stop actually ends, or why a simple order to step out of the car can ignite a constitutional fight? We brought on a rare voice who has lived both sides of the badge—a former highway patrol sergeant turned Harvard Grad attorney, Anthony Bandiero—to demystify search and seizure with plain, usable rules. Together, we press into the places cops and citizens collide: Qualified Immunity, the moment a warning becomes a ticket, what Pennsylvania v. Mims truly permits, and how to handle speech without letting emotion drive enforcement.We move from the curb to the front door and into the yard, where curtilage is the most violated and least understood terrain. You'll hear a clean framework—consent, recognized exception, or warrant—for any search or seizure at a home, plus clear guidance on arrests at a suspect's domicile versus third-party residences under Steagald. We unpack real scenarios: loud backyard parties and exigency, knock-and-talks that drift into unlawful entry, and what “reason to believe” someone is present actually looks like.Then we widen the lens to modern surveillance. Flock cameras, fusion centers, and private feeds don't automatically trigger Katz today, but a mesh of cameras tracking your movement like virtual GPS might. We talk policy, FOIA pitfalls, and how agencies can protect privacy while still solving crime. And yes, we tackle qualified immunity—where it makes sense, where it fails, and why courts should be forced to answer whether a right was violated before awarding immunity. The fix isn't just legal; it's cultural: more training, better articulation, less ego. That's how you cut lawsuits, strengthen cases, and earn trust.If you care about the Fourth Amendment, practical policing, or simply understanding your rights, this conversation delivers clarity without the legal fog. Subscribe, share this episode with a friend who loves a good legal debate, and leave a review with the one rule you think every officer and citizen should know.send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.comPeregrine.io: Turn your worst detectives into Sherlock Holmes, head to Peregrine.io tell them Two Cops One Donut sent you or direct message me and I'll get you directly connected and skip the salesmen.Support the showPlease see our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TwoCopsOneDonut Join our Discord!! https://discord.gg/BdjeTEAc *Send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com

In this episode, Tudor sits down with former Congressman Louie Gohmert for a revealing conversation about the Biden administration’s political surveillance and the troubling expansion of government power. Gohmert details how grand jury subpoenas have been weaponized in the January 6th investigation, raising serious concerns about privacy, constitutional rights, and the growing reach of the deep state. They discuss the role of big tech in modern monitoring, the urgency of political accountability, and why grassroots activism is essential to protect future generations from the creep of Marxism and government overreach. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Hump Day on the Majority Report On today's program: Aftyn Behn outperforms expectations in the special election for Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, a result that could signal trouble for the GOP heading into the 2026 midterms. Jessica Burbank, a contributor to Drop Site News, joins Sam and Emma to discuss Flock Safety—a Peter Thiel–funded, AI-powered surveillance company that is building an unregulated nationwide monitoring network in potential violation of the Fourth Amendment. Checkout Jessica's piece for Drop Site News and accompanying documentary on YouTube. K. Sabeel Rahman, professor of law at Cornell University, joins the program to discuss his piece in Dissent magazine, "The Case for a Third Reconstruction". In the Fun Half: Trump convenes a chaotic Cabinet meeting; one he slept through for the most part, waking only to unleash racist attacks on Somali refugees. Meanwhile, Hegseth keeps trying to pass responsibility for his war crimes to Admiral Bradley. Peter Thiel's guru, Curtis Yarvin shares his nazi "origin story" Sam and Emma take a look at the Trailer for "The Voice of Hind Rajab", a docudrama that follows the Red Crescent response to the killing of the five-year-old Palestinian girl. Hillary Clinton blames TikTok for ruining Israel's reputation. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: SHOPIFY: Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/majority WILDGRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription. ZBIOTICS: Go to https://zbiotics.com/MAJORITY and use MAJORITY at checkout for 15% off any first-time orders of ZBiotics probiotics NAKED WINES: To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to NakedWines.com/MAJORITY and use code MAJORITY for both the code AND PASSWORD. SUNSET LAKE: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com  

Can you legally resist an unlawful arrest? Get ready to rethink your next driving adventure on Lawyer Talk.Welcome back to Lawyer Talk, the show where legal questions become everyday conversations. Steve Palmer and law student Troy Henricksen talk about a question submitted by a listener: “Can you be arrested for speeding?”Together, they explore how this scenario unfolds in real life versus what's taught in law school, unraveling the nitty-gritty of misdemeanor classifications and police authority in Ohio. The discussion blends practical insights with legal theory, highlighting what makes an arrest lawful or unlawful—and what your rights might look like if you're pulled over for speeding.From slippery slopes in policing to constitutional protections against unreasonable punishment, this episode gives a fresh perspective on traffic stops, minor misdemeanors, and what happens if those flashing lights turn into handcuffs. 3 Key Takeaways:Minor Misdemeanors Are Different: In Ohio (and most states), typical speeding violations are classified as minor misdemeanors, which means the law does not allow police to arrest you for them. Arrests are generally reserved for offenses with potential jail time.Exceptions Exist: If you're charged with something more severe, like reckless operation (e.g., going 100mph), you can be lawfully arrested because those charges aren't considered minor misdemeanors.Know Your Rights If Arrested Unlawfully: An unlawful arrest for a minor offense could be a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Steve suggests that you may have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit if you're arrested when the statute doesn't allow it.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Send us a text A decorated field artillery officer and former West Point garrison commander says one strange night derailed 27 years of service—and exposed how fragile due process can be on a military post. Tony Bianchi recounts leading a week of storm recovery, an alumni dinner where a trivial carving-station moment sparked a rumor, and a late drive home later portrayed as a gate run. Hours after he went to bed, senior MPs gathered behind his house and colleagues woke him at 2:45 AM—an entry a DMV judge would later label a Fourth Amendment violation.  We trace the aftermath: suspension, relief, and a permanently filed GOMOR before any federal charge; no AR 15-6 despite conflicts; and video the government held that undercut its narrative. Tony describes why he refused chemical tests, what happened in the station, and how leaders leaned on “legally sufficient” while ignoring common sense. In court, a jury acquitted him of DWI and disorderly conduct, leaving only a stop-sign violation. A Grade Determination Review Board kept his O6 retirement. His FTCA claim and GOMOR appeal continue.  This is a candid inside view of military justice shaped by command-level turf fights, MP overreach, and leaders outsourcing judgment to legal advisors. Tony isn't trying to burn the institution—he's a West Point grad who loves the Army. He's asking for better investigations, real accountability, and leaders willing to weigh facts over optics. If a garrison commander can be pulled into a federal case on such thin grounds, what protects everyone else?  Subscribe for more stories that push for reform with receipts, not rhetoric. If this conversation resonated, share it with a teammate and leave a review with the one change you'd make to strengthen due process on base. The stories and opinions shared on Stories of Service are told in each guest's own words. They reflect personal experiences, memories, and perspectives. While every effort is made to present these stories respectfully and authentically, Stories of Service does not verify the accuracy or completeness of every statement. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the host, producers, or affiliates.Support the showVisit my website: https://thehello.llc/THERESACARPENTERRead my writings on my blog: https://www.theresatapestries.com/Listen to other episodes on my podcast: https://storiesofservice.buzzsprout.comWatch episodes of my podcast:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheresaCarpenter76

Hillsborough Mayor Bell joins 97.9 The Hill News Director Brighton McConnell on Tuesday, Nov. 25 to detail news around town. The post Hillsborough: Fourth Amendment Rights, Urban Service Boundary and Holiday Service appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

If you've ever felt weird about being stopped after clearing security, or just want to know what your rights really are at the airport, this episode's got you covered.Why can TSA just pull you aside at the airport and dig through your bags, even if you haven't done anything suspicious? Steve Palmer and Troy Hendrickson are tackling this head-on, starting with a listener's YouTube question that gets right to the heart of the TSA search dilemma.Steve breaks down the difference between actual searches that need legal justification and those “consensual encounters” we all sign up for when we choose to fly. The conversation gets into legal stuff like the Fourth Amendment, airport security policies, and an old Supreme Court case (Florida v. Royer) that spelled out where the lines are drawn.Here are 3 key takeaways from their discussion:Consent is Everything: When you purchase a ticket and enter the airport, you're essentially consenting to the TSA screening process. As Steve explains, you can always choose not to fly, but once you step into the process, searches are part of the deal.Not All Searches Are Equal: The courts (notably Florida v. Royer) distinguish between consensual encounters and those that require Fourth Amendment justification. Routine TSA screenings are generally considered consensual, but more targeted detentions (like pulling someone into a room) can cross the line into requiring probable cause.Police & TSA Can't Collaborate for a Pretext: Law enforcement can't use TSA procedures to skirt constitutional protections. If they use airport security as a cover to target someone they couldn't otherwise search, that becomes a Fourth Amendment issue.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Most Americans have little understanding of the vast amount of private data harvested from their smartphones by third parties, said Joe Weil, a former Apple product manager and the founder of Unplugged.Where you go, who you associate with, what you like, is all easily discoverable, Weil said.“It's publicly available. It's purchasable.”What's even worse is that the Fourth Amendment does not protect this advertising data, he said. The U.S. government, for example, does not require a warrant to access it.Data brokers sell this data freely, and by applying just a few filters, anyone—foreign governments, intelligence services, criminal cartels—can easily triangulate it to surveil and target individual people or groups, Weil said.“We can't do [surveillance] in China. They can do it here, and it's a huge vulnerability. They can easily find the people they want to take off the board—it's mapped out from our phones,” he said.Weil worked for 10 years at Apple in product strategy before founding Unplugged, a tech company that has built a smartphone designed to block tracking, data harvesting, and behavioral profiling at the system level.​Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.eclBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

David speaks with career public defender Eliza Orlins about the growing scope of ICE-enabled surveillance and why it should concern everyone, not just non-citizens. Orlins outlines a sprawling, largely unaccountable dragnet powered by commercial data brokers, license-plate readers, toll and DMV records, app-based location tracking, and an emerging push for real-time social-media monitoring—often sidestepping warrants and eroding Fourth Amendment protections. The pair discuss how these tools can be repurposed beyond immigration to target journalists, dissenters, and protest movements, and how legal guardrails like Posse Comitatus or voting-rights protections are being weakened in practice, even when they still exist on paper. They also focus on practical safety for this weekend's protests: consider leaving your phone at home, don't post identifiable photos of others, avoid engaging with agitators, and if approached by police, assert your right to remain silent and ask if you're free to leave. Despite the dark backdrop, Orlins emphasizes “joy as resistance” and points to the research suggesting that sustained, nonviolent participation at scale—the 3.5% threshold—can still check authoritarian drift. Follow Eliza Orlins on social media TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@elizaorlins  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eorlins/  Substack: https://substack.com/@elizaorlins