Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from hiatus – briefly!  I've used the hiatus well, skiing the Canadian Ski Marathon, trekking through Patagonia, and having a heart valve repaired (all good now!). So when I saw (and disagreed with ) Orin Kerr's new book, I figured it was time for episode 502 of the Cyberlaw Podcast.  Orin and I spend the episode digging into his book, The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World. The book is part theory, part casebook, part policy roadmap—and somehow still manages to be readable, even for non-lawyers. Orin's goal? To make sense of how the Fourth Amendment should apply in a world of smartphones, cloud storage, government-preserved Facebook accounts, and surveillance everywhere. The core notion of the book is “equilibrium adjustment”—the idea that courts have always tweaked Fourth Amendment rules to preserve a balance between law enforcement power and personal privacy, even as technology shifts the terrain. From Prohibition-era wiretaps to the modern smartphone, that balancing act has never stopped. Orin walks us through how this theory applies to search warrants for digital devices, plain view exceptions in the age of limitless data, and the surprisingly murky question of whether copying your files counts as a seizure. It's very persuasive, I say, if you ignore Congress's contribution to equilibrium. In some cases, the courts are simply discovering principles in the Fourth Amendment that Congress put in statute decades earlier. Worse, courts (and Orin) have too often privileged their idea of equilibrium over the equilibrium chosen by Congress, ignoring or implicitly declaring unconstitutional compromises between privacy and law enforcement that are every bit as defensible as the courts'. One example is preservation orders—those quiet government requests that tell internet providers to make a copy of your account just in case. Orin argues that's a Fourth Amendment search and needs a warrant, even if no one looks at the data yet. But preservation orders without a warrant are authorized by Congress; ignoring Congress's work should require more than a vague notion of equilibrium rebalancing, or so I argue. Orin is unpersuaded. We also revisit Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court decision on location tracking, and talk about what it does—and doesn't—mean for the third-party doctrine. Orin's take is refreshingly narrow: Carpenter didn't blow up the doctrine, but it did acknowledge that some records, even held by third parties, are just too revealing to ignore. I argue that Carpenter is the judiciary's Vietnam war – it has committed troops to an unwinnable effort to replace the third party rule with a doomed series of touchy-feely ad hoc rulings. That said, Orin's version of the decision, which deserves to be called the Kerr-penter doctrine, is more limited and more defensible than most of the legal (and judicial) interpretations over the last several years. Finally, we talk border searches, network surveillance, and whether the Supreme Court has any idea where to go next. (Spoiler: probably not.)

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." But — what's unreasonable? That question has fueled a century's worth of court rulings that have dramatically expanded the power of individual police officers in the U.S. Today on the show, how an amendment that was supposed to limit government power has ended up enabling it. This episode originally published in 2024.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

From December 4, 2023: Is the Fourth Amendment doing any work anymore? In a forthcoming article entitled “Government Purchases of Private Data,” Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, details how, in recent years, federal and state agencies have begun to purchase location information and other consumer data, as government attorneys have mostly concluded that purchasing data is a valid way to bypass Fourth Amendment restrictions. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Matthew to discuss this article, where he attempts to bring this constitutional evasion to light. They talked about the two main arguments offered for why the purchase of private data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, his responses to these arguments, and the recommendations he makes to courts, legislators, and government agencies to address the Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns surrounding government purchases of private data.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Barnes v Felix.    In this case, the court considered this issue: Should courts apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment?The case was decided on May 15, 2025. In Barnes v Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the “moment-of-threat” doctrine when evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that this doctrine, which limits analysis to the precise moment an officer perceives a threat, improperly narrows the required inquiry. Instead, courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including relevant events and context leading up to the use of force, to assess whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable. The Court emphasized that excluding prior events conflicts with the fact-dependent, context-sensitive approach mandated by the Fourth Amendment.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

On the latest episode of the Conduit Street Podcast, Ben Yelin joins Kevin Kinnally to break down the seismic shifts in federal emergency management, including recent leadership changes at FEMA, the termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, and the ripple effects for local governments. As Maryland counties contend with rising threats — from extreme weather to infrastructure vulnerabilities — federal support remains a critical lifeline. Learn how the loss of BRIC funding disrupts local resilience projects and what it means for shovel-ready stormwater upgrades, flood mitigation, and coastal protections across the state. The conversation also covers MACo's recent advocacy push, where county emergency managers called on Maryland's congressional delegation to protect FEMA's mission and restore critical federal programs. About the GuestBen Yelin, JD, is the Program Director for Public Policy and External Affairs at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, where he consults public and private entities on homeland security, cybersecurity, and emergency management policy. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, where he teaches courses on electronic surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Useful LinksPrevious Conduit Street Coverage: County Emergency Managers to Congress: Protect FEMA, Restore BRICPrevious Conduit Street Coverage: FEMA Cancels Resilience Grants, Leaving Counties at RiskFollow us on Socials!MACo on TwitterMACo on Facebook

In this episode we continue the story of Daniel Rigmaiden, a man arrested for tax fraud in 2008 who reveals the Stingray surveillance device used by the Feds to track his location. Despite being in jail, Rigmaiden tirelessly researches and files numerous motions, arguing that the use of Stingrays violated citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. His determination attracts the attention of the ACLU and the EFF, ultimately influencing government policy on surveillance practices, policies that protect privacy for all of us. ResourcesRigmaiden court documentsDOJ: Justice Department Announces Enhanced Policy for Use of Cell-Site SimulatorsThe News Tribune: Stingray snared him, now he helps write rules for surveillance ACLU: Fighting for TransparencyWall Street Journal: Judge Questions Tools That Grab Cellphone Data on Innocent People ACLU websiteEFF website.Send us a textDigital Disruption with Geoff Nielson Discover how technology is reshaping our lives and livelihoods.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights

This lecture covers lawful arrests, pretrial procedures, and confession/interrogation law, building on Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Key topics include constitutional standards for stops, frisks (reasonable suspicion), and arrests (probable cause); pretrial steps from initial appearance to plea negotiations; and Fifth/Sixth Amendment safeguards concerning Miranda warnings, waiver, invocation, and right to counsel at critical stages. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave, distinguishing temporary stops (reasonable suspicion, limited pat-down) from custodial arrests (probable cause, full procedures). The Terry stop allows brief stops and pat-downs based on articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a reasonable belief of being armed and dangerous, limited to weapon discovery. Arrests generally require a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate, with exceptions for exigent circumstances (fleeing suspect, public safety). Warrantless felony arrests in public are permitted with objective probable cause, respecting the individual's dignity and avoiding excessive force. The pretrial process begins with an initial appearance (charges, counsel, release). Bail is considered under the Eighth Amendment (no excessive bail), balancing offense seriousness, criminal history, and community risk, potentially involving release on recognizance, bonds, or preventive detention. Federal felony cases often require a grand jury indictment (probable cause), while other jurisdictions use prosecutorial information and preliminary hearings as a screen against unfounded prosecutions. Prosecutors have broad charging discretion and utilize plea bargaining (guilty plea for reduced charge/sentence) which raises concerns about coercion and unequal power. Pretrial motions, especially to suppress illegally obtained evidence (Fourth Amendment challenges), are crucial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda warnings: right to silence, use of statements, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent), requiring knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waivers based on totality of circumstances. Invoking the right to counsel or silence requires ceasing interrogation. Exceptions to Miranda include public safety and non-custodial questioning (voluntariness still applies). The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel at critical stages after formal charges (indictment, arraignment, etc.), such as plea discussions, lineups, and hearings, requiring knowing and intelligent waivers. Massiah prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from an indicted defendant without counsel. Elstad allows subsequent admissible statements after defective initial Miranda warnings if later warnings are proper and waiver is valid. Edwards' "bright line" rule requires ceasing interrogation upon invoking Miranda counsel until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication. The lecture concludes by summarizing these themes, leading to discussions on trial, sentencing, and post-conviction in the next session.

This lecture provides an overview of criminal procedure law, with a significant focus on the constitutional foundations and the specifics of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the sources of this law, including the Constitution, statutes, federal rules, and state law. The text then examines the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, discussing its purpose, the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the definitions of search and seizure, and the warrant requirement with its core components like probable cause and particularity. Finally, it details numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement and the impact of the exclusionary rule and related doctrines.Key TakeawaysThe primary sources include the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes enacted by Congress, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state constitutions, state legislative enactments, and judicial decisions interpreting these provisions.The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individual privacy and dignity against arbitrary government intrusion and to channel law enforcement activity through neutral decision making.The two-part test asks whether the individual demonstrated an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in property, considering factors like the officers' intention, the manner of taking custody, and the control exerted over the property.A valid search warrant requires a neutral and detached magistrate to find probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found at a specified location and that the warrant particularly describes the place to be searched and items to be seized.The totality of the circumstances approach involves a practical, common-sense evaluation of all the information available to the magistrate, including the informant's reliability, the detail of the information, and any corroborating evidence, rather than a rigid formula.The plain view doctrine allows evidence in plain sight to be seized without a warrant if the officer is lawfully present where the evidence is located and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent.Voluntary consent by an individual with authority over the premises can justify a warrantless search, provided the consent is given freely and voluntarily without coercion.The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that makes evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches or seizures inadmissible at trial, serving to deter police misconduct and preserve judicial integrity.Standing means that only individuals whose own Fourth Amendment rights have been violated can challenge a search or seizure, requiring them to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or property seized.

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of the constitutional foundations of criminal procedure law, focusing on the Fourth Amendment. It explores the sources of criminal procedure, the significance of judicial interpretation, and the balance between law enforcement and individual rights. Key topics include the definitions of searches and seizures, warrant requirements, exceptions to these requirements, and the implications of modern technology on privacy rights. The lecture concludes with a discussion on the exclusionary rule and its impact on the justice system.TakeawaysThe Fourth Amendment establishes protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.Judicial decisions play a crucial role in interpreting constitutional provisions.The concept of reasonable expectation of privacy is central to Fourth Amendment analysis.Warrants must be issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.Exceptions to the warrant requirement include searches incident to arrest and exigent circumstances.The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.The good faith exception allows some leeway for law enforcement actions.Modern technology poses new challenges to Fourth Amendment protections.The open fields doctrine limits privacy rights in areas outside the home.Policy debates continue regarding the balance between law enforcement and individual rights.Criminal Procedure, Fourth Amendment, Searches, Seizures, Warrant Requirements, Exclusionary Rule, Privacy Rights, Law Enforcement, Constitutional Law, Judicial Interpretation

This week, Ben and Dave tackle two major policy stories making headlines. Ben unpacks the Fourth Circuit's long-awaited ruling in United States v. Chatrie, where the court failed to reach a majority decision on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the panel affirmed the lower court's decision based solely on the good-faith exception, leaving key constitutional questions unanswered. Then, Dave covers the latest twist in the Epic Games v. Apple saga: a federal judge ruled that Apple willfully defied a court order to open up iOS app payment options—referring the company and a senior executive for potential criminal investigation. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an ⁠audience survey⁠! Let us know how we are doing! Links related to our show this week: ⁠The Fourth Circuit's Geofencing Case Ends Not With a Bang But A Whimper Apple violated court's order to loosen app store rules, judge says Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠N2K Pro⁠ members on ⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ covers the story of how a proposed bipartisan U.S. law aims to crack down on semiconductor chip smuggling by mandating location-tracking technology, while President Trump's 2026 budget proposes major cuts to CISA's cybersecurity efforts, signaling shifting federal priorities amid growing concerns over national security and tech competition with China. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2014, the US government chose not to take a massive, rock-solid tax fraud case to trial. But why? This episode kicks off the tale of Daniel Rigmaiden, a hacker who exploited a legal loophole to regain his freedom. Find out how Rigmaiden's method for online connection, his Air Card, was both his downfall and his salvation. Take a deep dive into the data cell providers collect, how they share it with law enforcement, and the Fourth Amendment's role in protecting privacy. And tune in for Part II, where the real drama unfolds.01:02 The Rise of a Hacker03:04 The Air Card: A Game Changer08:17 How Cell Providers Track You10:46 The Fourth Amendment and Your Privacy18:33 The Stingray: A Controversial Surveillance ToolResourcesFourth Amendment PrimerUnited States of America v. Daniel David Rigmaiden, Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to SuppressVideo: Daniel Rigmaiden at Aaron Swartz Day 2017.Send us a textEveryday AI: Your daily guide to grown with Generative AICan't keep up with AI? We've got you. Everyday AI helps you keep up and get ahead.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Kendra Johnson, assistant Public Defender in Fairfax, Virginia, to explore the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Johnson explains how these amendments form the backbone of criminal procedure in America and protect citizens from government overreach.The discussion begins with an overview of each amendment: the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment covering rights such as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment ensuring the right to a speedy trial, impartial jury, and legal counsel. Johnson shares insights into the historical context of these amendments, explaining how the Framers developed these protections in response to abuses they had witnessed under British rule.The conversation highlights landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped these rights over time, including Katz v. United States, which established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard; Miranda v. Arizona, which created the famous "Miranda warnings"; and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney even for those who cannot afford one.The episode concludes with a discussion of emerging challenges to these constitutional protections in the digital age, including questions about surveillance technology, online trials, and artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Johnson emphasizes that these amendments are vital not just for those accused of crimes but for all citizens, as they establish boundaries on government power that protect everyone's liberty regardless of who holds political office.

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

This week we are joined by Avani Desai, CEO of Schellman, who is talking about what we can expect now that Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) is in effect. Ben's got the story of how a federal judge ruled that Google broke antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in online advertising, marking the second major legal blow in a year that could lead to a dramatic restructuring of the tech giant. Dave's got the story of a Nevada judge who ruled that "tower dumps"—grabbing cell tower data on thousands of people at once—are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment… but still let the cops use the data this time because they acted in good faith. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an audience survey! Let us know how we are doing! Links related to our show this week: Google Broke the Law to Keep Its Advertising Monopoly, a Judge Rules Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our Caveat Briefing, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to N2K Pro members on N2K CyberWire's website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing covers the story of Google losing its second major antitrust case, escalating U.S.-China trade tensions impacting chipmakers, a new probe into 23andMe's data handling, and a lawsuit against Discord for child safety concerns—highlighting growing scrutiny of tech giants across legal, regulatory, and geopolitical fronts. Curious about the details? Head over to the Caveat Briefing for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

GUEST: Crishaun the Don of The Misfit Nation Podcast on the Frisco track meet incident…The Hake Report, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 ADGUEST LINKS: https://x.com/crishaunthedon | https://www.youtube.com/@themisfitnationpodcast | https://misfitnation.podbean.com/ | https://rumble.com/user/TheMisfitNationTIMESTAMPS* (0:00:00) Rough Start* (0:02:44) Crishaun the Don, The Misfit Nation* (0:08:10) Hey, guys!* (0:09:35) Austin-Karmelo incident* (0:12:33) Crishaun's warning to whites, Austin's confrontation* (0:27:53) Racial identities and dysfunction… hustlers* (0:38:33) Security … Austin vs his dad* (0:48:00) MARK, L.A.: Dad guilt-ridden? Race hustlers? Punishment?* (1:00:31) WILLIAM, CA: Why bring a knife? Not a two-parent home* (1:11:21) Coffees, Supers* (1:15:36) Coffees, Supers* (1:21:01) JEFF, LA: Karmelo's daddy? Benefits single mothers* (1:25:08) ALEX, CA: Cell phones seized!* (1:29:42) Fourth Amendment…* (1:33:19) WILLIAM 7, CA: Can't interfere with investigation* (1:35:37) ROBERT, KS: Who started it?* (1:43:50) ROBERT: Going after Crishaun* (1:44:34) Check out Crishaun the Don, The Misfit Nation* (1:46:18) JUSTIN, CA: Capital punishment?* (1:52:39) The Hake Report Theme - A.I. Golardo / CarverLINKSBLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2025/4/23/crishaun-the-don-karmelo-austin-drama-wed-4-23-25PODCAST / Substack HAKE NEWS from JLP https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2025/4/23/would-you-be-with-a-woman-who-makes-more-jlp-wed-4-23-25Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/showVIDEO YouTube - Rumble* - Facebook - X - BitChute (Live) - Odysee*PODCAST Substack - Apple - Spotify - Castbox - Podcast Addict*SUPER CHAT on platforms* above or BuyMeACoffee, etc.SHOP - Printify (new!) - Spring (old!) - Cameo | All My LinksJLP Network:JLP - Church - TFS - Nick - Joel - Punchie Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textListen to the past LiveStream! When a frequent police critic agrees to join our show for a live debate on inventory searches, something unexpected happens—mutual understanding.Instead of the contentious exchange you might expect, our conversation with "Kingslayer" transforms into a fascinating exploration of Fourth Amendment rights during traffic stops. What begins as disagreement over when police can legally search impounded vehicles evolves into a nuanced discussion about constitutional protections, officer discretion, and the real-world complexities of policing.As Kingslayer articulates his concern—that inventory searches become problematic when vehicles aren't ultimately towed—our hosts acknowledge the legal gray area while explaining the liability and safety considerations from law enforcement's perspective. The respect shown on both sides creates space for genuine learning rather than defensive posturing.The episode also features body camera analysis of high-stakes encounters, including a pursuit ending in gunfire where officers demonstrate remarkable restraint, and a domestic dispute that escalates when a man refuses commands during a felony stop. Throughout each review, we break down tactical decisions, missed opportunities, and moments where training translates into life-saving action.What makes this episode special isn't just the content but the demonstration of how productive dialogue happens between those with different perspectives on policing. By prioritizing understanding over "winning" arguments, both sides discover common ground in their shared commitment to constitutional rights.Whether you're interested in law enforcement procedures, know-your-rights education, or simply want to see how difficult conversations can bridge divides, this episode offers rare insight into finding common ground in an increasingly polarized world. Subscribe and join a community where tough questions are welcome and mutual respect is the foundation of every discussion.

There will always be tension between our desire for privacy and safety. We're all for privacy, until we find that an invasion of said privacy could have stopped some terrible event. But are we willing to trade our privacy for safety? “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” --Benjamin Franklin In the case of SCHOLL and BEDNARZ v. Illinois State Police the privacy question revolves around automatic license place readers (ALPRs) and what makes a search reasonable.

Abdullah, an American citizen, was arrested in 2003 under the federal material witness statute, which permits the government to detain individuals with crucial testimony in a criminal case if they might flee. Though never charged with a crime, he was held in high-security detention for 16 days and faced court-ordered restrictions for another 15 months. Believing his detention was unlawful, Abdullah sued then–U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, claiming his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He has since settled in Saudi Arabia, where he's lived for over a decade. 0:00 Intro2:18 Gunpoint at at 144:54 LA Gangs 8:29 Eldest Child Pressure13:41 SurvivingtheStreets16:55 Gangs, Drugs and Rap21:09 CripsOriginStory24:07 Freemasonry VS Islam31:04 9/11Arrest39:40 Lawsuit Exile45:00 Law Reform Bias51:35 Yemen59:00 Prison and Aryan Brotherhood1:05:04 PTSD and Purpose1:18:48 Classism and Legacy

Abdullah, an American citizen, was arrested in 2003 under the federal material witness statute, which permits the government to detain individuals with crucial testimony in a criminal case if they might flee. Though never charged with a crime, he was held in high-security detention for 16 days and faced court-ordered restrictions for another 15 months.Believing his detention was unlawful, Abdullah sued then–U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, claiming his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He has since settled in Saudi Arabia, where he's lived for over a decade. 0:00 Intro2:18 Gunpoint at 144:54 LA Gang Chaos8:29 Eldest‑Child Pressure13:41 Surviving the Streets16:55 Gangs, Drugs & Rap21:09 Crips Origin Story24:07 Freemasonry VS Islam31:04 9/11 Arrest39:40 Lawsuit & Exile45:00 Law Reform & Bias51:35 Yemen59:00 Prison and Aryan Brotherhood1:05:04 PTSD & Purpose1:18:48 Classism & Legacy

In this filing, Bryan Kohberger's defense team replies to the prosecution's objection regarding their motion to suppress evidence obtained from three Google search warrants issued in early 2023. The defense argues that the warrants were constitutionally deficient because they failed to incorporate or include the supporting affidavit at the time of execution—an omission they claim violates both the Fourth Amendment and Idaho's equivalent constitutional provision. Kohberger's attorneys emphasize that for an affidavit to cure a warrant's lack of particularity, it must be explicitly referenced in the warrant and physically accompany it when served. They assert that the Google warrants lacked both, making them "general warrants" prohibited by law, and they cite multiple federal and state precedents to bolster their position.The defense also attacks the lack of specificity in the warrants, claiming they amounted to a sweeping data grab without clear limits or guidelines for execution. According to the filing, the warrants did not set out objective standards for determining what data should be seized and failed to distinguish between potentially relevant and lawful content held by Google. The defense further states that even if the affidavits had been included, they contained overly broad language—failing to meet the constitutional requirement that warrants be narrowly tailored to avoid unjustified intrusions into privacy. They urge the court to suppress all data obtained from these warrants, arguing that the state cannot retroactively fix foundational defects in their execution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-Google.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In January – just one day after Trump was certified as the next president by Congress, a massive Border Patrol raid took place in Bakersfiled, California. Seventy-eight migrant workers were detained under the guise of a crack down on criminals, but when the dust settled the data revealed that only one out of the 78 people detained had any criminal record. Joining us to discuss are Bree Bernwanger, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California and lead attorney on United Farm Workers v. Noem, a lawsuit which claims the Border Patrol violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their Fifth Amendment right to due process, and other federal laws, during the raids described above. We're also joined by Sergio Olmos, an investigative reporter for CalMatters, whose latest reporting, along with our next guest, focuses on the same Border Patrol actions in Bakersfield that are being challenged in the lawsuit that I previously mentioned. And we're additionally joined by Wendy Fry, a multimedia investigative journalist who reports on poverty and inequality for the California Divide team at CalMatters, who has been collaborating with Sergio in covering the Border Patrol Bakersfield raids. Check out the CalMatters coverage of this story here: https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/04/border-patrol-to-retrain-hundreds-of-california-agents-on-how-to-comply-with-the-constitution/ Learn more about the lawsuit UFW v. Noem: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/united-farm-workers-v-noem — Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/   The post Border Patrol Sued Over Violating Bakersfield Immigrant Rights w/ Bree Bernwanger, Sergio Olmos & Wendy Fry appeared first on KPFA.

In this filing, Bryan Kohberger's defense team replies to the prosecution's objection regarding their motion to suppress evidence obtained from three Google search warrants issued in early 2023. The defense argues that the warrants were constitutionally deficient because they failed to incorporate or include the supporting affidavit at the time of execution—an omission they claim violates both the Fourth Amendment and Idaho's equivalent constitutional provision. Kohberger's attorneys emphasize that for an affidavit to cure a warrant's lack of particularity, it must be explicitly referenced in the warrant and physically accompany it when served. They assert that the Google warrants lacked both, making them "general warrants" prohibited by law, and they cite multiple federal and state precedents to bolster their position.The defense also attacks the lack of specificity in the warrants, claiming they amounted to a sweeping data grab without clear limits or guidelines for execution. According to the filing, the warrants did not set out objective standards for determining what data should be seized and failed to distinguish between potentially relevant and lawful content held by Google. The defense further states that even if the affidavits had been included, they contained overly broad language—failing to meet the constitutional requirement that warrants be narrowly tailored to avoid unjustified intrusions into privacy. They urge the court to suppress all data obtained from these warrants, arguing that the state cannot retroactively fix foundational defects in their execution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-Google.pdf

In this Q&A session, I talk more about the realm of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. I answer an intriguing comment from a listener concerning our fundamental right to privacy and how it fares against government actions.I'll explore both sides of this debate, tackling questions about individual rights, the role of law enforcement, and the precarious balance between safety and freedom. We unravel why these constitutional protections are crucial, and what they mean for you. Here are three key takeawaysBalancing Act: I highlight the importance of balancing the need for security with individual privacy rights. While stopping crime is crucial, maintaining control over personal spaces without unwarranted searches is just as important.Fourth Amendment Protections: The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect citizens from government overreach. It's not only about the 'bad actors' but also understanding that even good intentions can lead to infringements on privacy if not checked.Assert Your Rights: Even if you're not hiding anything illegal, it's essential to understand and assert your legal rights. I stress the importance of knowing your rights to ensure they remain intact for everyone.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

In this filing, Bryan Kohberger's defense team replies to the prosecution's objection regarding their motion to suppress evidence obtained from three Google search warrants issued in early 2023. The defense argues that the warrants were constitutionally deficient because they failed to incorporate or include the supporting affidavit at the time of execution—an omission they claim violates both the Fourth Amendment and Idaho's equivalent constitutional provision. Kohberger's attorneys emphasize that for an affidavit to cure a warrant's lack of particularity, it must be explicitly referenced in the warrant and physically accompany it when served. They assert that the Google warrants lacked both, making them "general warrants" prohibited by law, and they cite multiple federal and state precedents to bolster their position.The defense also attacks the lack of specificity in the warrants, claiming they amounted to a sweeping data grab without clear limits or guidelines for execution. According to the filing, the warrants did not set out objective standards for determining what data should be seized and failed to distinguish between potentially relevant and lawful content held by Google. The defense further states that even if the affidavits had been included, they contained overly broad language—failing to meet the constitutional requirement that warrants be narrowly tailored to avoid unjustified intrusions into privacy. They urge the court to suppress all data obtained from these warrants, arguing that the state cannot retroactively fix foundational defects in their execution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-Google.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Imagine you are stopped by law enforcement. Maybe you were doing something wrong, maybe not. At this point, when you are in the custody of law enforcement, whose safety matters more, yours or the officers? In the 2017 Fourth Circuit case United States v. Robinson, while not specifically put this way, the question came up, does officer safety trump your right against unreasonable search and seizure, even your own safety?

In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, I've got an intriguing legal question for you that goes right into the heart of the Fourth Amendment. We're exploring a listener's thought-provoking comment about the tricky balance between zoning laws, personal privacy, and government overreach. Ever wondered if police can use drones to spy on you without a warrant? Well, that's exactly what we're unpacking today.I'll be discussing how building restrictions, like those pesky fence height limitations, intersect with our constitutional rights. We'll look at the sliding scale of privacy expectations and the complex world of government regulations. Plus, I'll talk about what all this means for our Fourth Amendment freedoms. It's an interesting conversation that challenges us to think critically about our rights and the laws that shape them. Here's what you need to know:Privacy vs. Regulations: There's a tension between zoning laws and your Fourth Amendment rights. If you're restricted from certain privacy measures, like building a high fence, what does that mean for your expectation of privacy?Freedom of Choice: We still have the choice of where to live, which impacts our privacy expectations. If living in a regulated area, sometimes our expectations of privacy need to adjust accordingly.Government Regulation Watch: If regulations start infringing on Fourth Amendment rights without a solid basis, they must be scrutinized. It's essential to understand when governmental action may overstep constitutional protections.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

I'm tackling a timely question from our listener, Thomas, about the legality of police waiting outside bars and following drivers. Thomas's neighbor was recently pulled over for a DUI after rolling through a stop sign. I'll walk you through why law enforcement often sets up near bars during peak drinking hours and discuss what makes certain police practices legal and constitutional in these scenarios. Remember, this isn't legal advice, but rather a chance to clear up common misconceptions and let you know the nuances of traffic stops and DUI charges. Key TakeawaysStrategic Patrols: Just like hunters and fishers go where they expect to succeed, police often patrol areas near bars to catch potential drunk drivers. While this might feel unfair, it's not illegal.Traffic Violations Matter: Even minor infractions, like rolling through a stop sign, can give police a reason to pull you over. If there's an observable traffic violation, this is viewed as a justified stop under the Fourth Amendment.Expectation of Privacy: Although we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars, police need a valid reason for traffic stops, and a traffic violation can provide that reason.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

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf