Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump's ICE and Border Patrol forces continuing to attack Minnesota and other States at the same time a whistleblower has come forward to expose a rampant criminal scheme by ICE and Border Patrol to violate the Fourth Amendment. Try Rho Nutrition today and experience the difference of Liposomal Technology. Use code MEIDAS for 20% OFF everything at https://rhonutrition.com/discount/MEIDAS Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is continually paying the [CB]s more and more of their hard earned labor. In Germany the people are taxed 42%, almost half of their income. Fed inflation indicator reports no inflation, Truinflation reports inflation is at 1.2%.BoA and Citibank are in talks to offer 10% credit card. Trump says US will the crypto capital of the world. Globalism/[CB] system has failed, the power will return to the people. The patriots are sending a message, DOJ 2.0 is not like DOJ 1.0, same with the FBI, you commit a crime you will be arrested. The message is clear, the protection from these agencies are gone. Bondi arrest the Church rioters. Trump’s message at DAVOS is clear, the [DS] power and agenda is no more. Trump is now in control and the world will begin to move in a different direction, either you are on board or you will be left behind. The power belongs to the people.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2014289396112011443?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Refuses To Show Any Signs Of Runaway ‘Trump Tariff’ Costs The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – rose 0.2% MoM (as expected), which leave it up 2.8% YoY (as expected), slightly lower than September’s +2.9%…   Bear in mind that this morning’s third look at Q3 GDP printed a +2.9% YoY for Core PCE. Under the hood, the biggest driver of Core PCE remains Services costs – not tariff-driven Goods prices…   In fact, on a MoM basis, Non-durable goods prices saw deflation for the second month in a row…   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2014322072286302619?s=20 – Food – mostly Eggs – Household durables – particularly housekeeping supplies – Alcohol & tobacco – mostly alcoholic beverages Our number is derived by aggregating millions of real-time price data points every day to calculate a year-over-year CPI % rate. It is comparable but not identical to the survey-based official headline inflation released monthly by the BLS, which was 2.7% for December. Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president.  Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution.  Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he's pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it'll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers.  Source: zerohedge.com Trump sues JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5B over alleged ‘political’ debanking The lawsuit claims JPMorgan’s decision ‘came about as a result of political and social motivations’ to ‘distance itself’ Trump and his ‘conservative political views’  President Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking him for political reasons. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies.  “ Source: foxnews.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2013984082640658888?s=20  WEF Finance/Banking Panel – If Independent National Economies Continue Rising, Global Trade Drops and We Lose Control Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses. Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies.  The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse. If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement?  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.   If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear. If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company.  Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  Political/Rights TWO-TIERED JUSTICE: Conservative Journalist Kaitlin Bennett Charged and Fined for Interviewing Democrats in Public — While Don Lemon Storms Churches With Zero Consequences The United States now operates under a blatantly two-tiered justice system, where conservative journalists are criminally charged for speech in public spaces, while left-wing media figures face zero consequences for harassing Americans and disrupting religious services. Conservative journalist Kaitlin Bennett revealed this week that she was charged with a federal crime and fined by the National Park Service in St. Augustine for the so-called offense of asking Democrats questions on public property. According to Bennett, federal agents targeted her while she was conducting on-the-street interviews, a form of journalism protected by the First Amendment. Despite being on public land, Bennett says she was cited and punished simply for engaging in political speech that the Left finds inconvenient. Bennett addressed the incident directly in a post on X, writing: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/2014174254799958148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014174254799958148%7Ctwgr%5Ef4a6650cd0c60d38edfea018c5665c2cc2fe5199%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Ftwo-tier-justice-conservative-journalist-kaitlin-bennett-charged%2F When asked by another local journalist exactly what “lawful order” Bennett had disobeyed, the ranger reportedly could not provide a straight answer. WATCH: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014322865848406370?s=20   Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.   Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014049440911303019?s=20   inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal in 2019. In a dangerous attempt to evade arrest, this criminal illegal alien weaponized his vehicle and rammed law enforcement. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The criminal illegal alien was not hit and attempted to flee on foot. He was successfully apprehended by law enforcement. The illegal alien was not injured, but a CBP officer was injured.  These dangerous attempts to evade arrest have surged since sanctuary politicians, including Governor Newsom, have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest and provided guides advising illegal aliens how to recognize ICE, block entry, and defy arrest. Our officers are now facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks. This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.   https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2014063905413177637?s=20  CNN Panelist Issues Retraction and Apology After Going Too Far in On-Air Trump Attack    footage of CNN's “Newsnight with Abby Phillip” was posted to social media platform X featuring 25-year-old leftist activist Cameron Kasky alongside panel mainstay Scott Jennings. A moment between the two went viral when Kasky casually declared that President Donald Trump had been involved in an international sex trafficking ring. Jennings wasn't going to let that remark go unchallenged by host John Berman. The topic of conversation had been Trump's interest in Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Kasky threw in a jab at Trump with an allusion to the president's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an allusion Kasky's now trying to walk back. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win 'em all,” he blurted out. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/2013455047288377517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013455047288377517%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F   Berman asked Jennings a follow-up question about Greenland, but instead of addressing that, Jennings circled back to Kasky's remark. “You're gonna let that sit?” Jennings asked Berman. “Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring or …?” After assuring Jennings that he would do the fact-checking, Berman asked Kasky to repeat what he'd said about the global sex-trafficking ring. “That Donald Trump was … probably … very involved with it,” the arrogant young man replied, with perhaps a touch less confidence. To Berman's credit, and the CNN legal team's, he immediately said, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://twitter.com/camkasky/status/2013760245298864477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013760245298864477%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2014189561002291385?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/brentdsadler/status/2014311942119137584?s=20  important as these agreements cover the entirety of the Chagos group of islands/features. Critical as future third party presence in those areas proximate Diego Garcia could in practical terms render those U.S. military facilities operationally impractical (ie useless). The current deal under consideration in the UK parliament in a rushed vote as soon as 2 February is ill advised. And it likely would break the decades long understanding with the U.S. government. See: Active U.S. treaties: https://state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Treaties-in-Force-2025-FINAL.pdf 1966 Foundational Understanding: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf 1972 Understanding regarding new facilities on Diego Garcia: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20866/volume-866-I-8737-English.pdf 1976 Understanding and concurrence on new communications facilities on Diego Garcia and references as foundational the 1966 Understanding: https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1976-TS0019.pdf?utm_source https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2014150131247874267?s=20 The EU-Mercosur deal is a major free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Negotiated for over 25 years, it aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade zones, covering more than 700 million people and reducing tariffs on goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products.  It includes commitments on sustainability, labor rights, and environmental protections, but critics argue these are insufficient to address issues like Amazon deforestation and unfair competition for European farmers. The agreement was politically finalized in 2019 but faced delays due to environmental concerns and opposition from countries like France and Austria. It was formally signed on January 17, 2026, after EU member states (with a qualified majority, despite opposition from five countries including France) greenlit it on January 9.  The Stupidity of Davos Explained Using an Example of Their Own Creation China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn't hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles. In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs. China brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin' brilliant.   The climate change alarmists are helping China's economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up. What does the outcome look like? Well, in this example we see hundreds of thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don't even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn't care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges. Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year. Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement. 1. China sells EV's in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies. 2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada. It's gets funnier. 3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV's as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV's in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn't pay or lose a dime. But wait…. 4. Carney can't do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law.

The Gilgo Beach serial killer case is fracturing. Rex Heuermann's defense just filed a 178-page motion demanding one murder charge be dismissed and suggesting another convicted killer may be responsible for some of the deaths attributed to their client.Judge Timothy Mazzei set a September 2026 trial date on January 13th — "come hell or high water" — but the defense isn't going quietly. They're challenging twenty search warrants, arguing the pizza crust DNA collection violated Fourth Amendment rights, and asking the court to throw out the Sandra Costilla murder charge. The evidence linking Heuermann to her 1993 death? A single hair on her outer shirt.The defense is demanding discovery from the John Bittrolff prosecution — a convicted killer already serving time for two Long Island murders with the same victim profile. Defense attorney Michael Brown noted that a former prosecutor previously said Bittrolff's "handiwork" was probably responsible for Costilla's death.Adding to the chaos: Andrew Dykes, a 66-year-old Army veteran, was just arrested in December for the murder of "Peaches" — Tanya Denise Jackson — long assumed to be a Gilgo Beach victim. Different killer. Same dumping ground.DA Ray Tierney remains confident with whole genome sequencing evidence, nine hairs across six victims, and a computer planning document allegedly detailing Heuermann's methods. But the single-killer narrative? That's officially dead. The question now is how many predators were hunting the same territory.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #LongIslandSerialKiller #JohnBittrolff #SandraCostilla #AndrewDykes #TrueCrimeToday #SerialKiller #DNAEvidence #ColdCaseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Melissa, Leah, and Kate kick off by discussing the functional suspension of the Constitution in Minneapolis and Trump's targeting of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Then they dissect the arguments in a pair of cases that came before the Court last week about whether state laws barring trans girls and women from their schools' sports teams violate the Constitution or Title IX. Finally, they break down new opinions from SCOTUS involving criminal law, the Fourth Amendment, and mail-in ballots.Favorite things:Kate: You've heard about who ICE is recruiting. The truth is far worse. I'm the proof., Laura Jedeed (Slate); Remarkably Bright Creatures, Shelby Van Pelt; God of the Woods, Liz Moore; Ulysses at the Public TheaterLeah: They Were Ordinary Germans. We Are Ordinary Americans., Shalom Auslander (NYT); What to know about the Insurrection Act, Steve Vladeck & Allison Gill (One First); Can Trump Actually Use the Insurrection Act? Steve Vladeck and Jennifer Rubin (The Contrarian)Melissa: Nuremberg; Ammel vs. Sinema; This guy Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We didn't get the tariffs decision this week, but we discuss two of the opinions we did get -- Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, a decision about standing and election law, and Case v. Montana, a rare Fourth Amendment case -- in a remarkably efficient episode (after a brief detour into Grok's jurisprudence and the announcement of a major gift to the Constitutional Law Institute).

SubscribeBuy me a coffee

Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.

Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- In his latest article for National Review, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew C. McCarthy explained why, legally, the immigration officer who shot a Minneapolis woman while she allegedly attempted to strike ICE officers with her car, will not be found guilty of any crime under the Fourth Amendment and the 1985 Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Gardner. 6:15pm- Gary sits on Rich's lap. To be clear, Gary is a puppy…not a person. We promise this isn't as weird as it sounds. 6:20pm- Joe in Columbus joins the show—despite being banned from the program! 6:40pm- The Eagles are favored to win their round 1 playoff game against San Francisco, Zohran Mamdani accuses ICE agents of attacking immigrants, and cell phones are now banned in New Jersey schools.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (01/08/2026): 3:05pm- According to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security, a woman was shot and killed by immigration enforcement agents in Minnesota after attempting to run over ICE agents with her car. 3:20pm- While speaking with the press, Gov. Tim Walz denied having ever used “inflammatory terms” that would have encouraged Minnesotans to confront federal agents attempting to enforce immigration laws. However, less than two minutes later in the very same press briefing, Walz accused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of being an “executioner.” 3:30pm- In a press conference on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance addressed the yesterday's shooting in Minneapolis: "I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also recognizing that it's a tragedy of her own making.” He continued, "everybody who has been repeating the LIE that this is some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis when law enforcement shot at her—you should be ashamed of yourselves." 3:40pm- Vice President Vance announced the creation of a new Assistant Attorney General position who will have “nationwide jurisdiction over fraud”—focusing on Minnesota welfare fraud initially. 3:45pm- On Wednesday, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey accused ICE of “causing chaos and distrust” and stated: “To ICE, get the f*ck out of Minneapolis.” Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is now echoing similar sentiments and threatening to impede immigration enforcement in his city. 4:00pm- Sen. Dave McCormick—United States Senator from Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Venezuelan tyrant Nicholas Maduro being removed from power, the synthetic drug crisis devastating Philadelphia, and nationwide immigration enforcement efforts. Sen. McCormick also reacts to Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner's inflammatory rhetoric directed at ICE agents. 4:25pm- Donkey's Place—which Anthony Bourdain famously declared the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia (despite being located in Camden, NJ)—had its beloved walrus penis stolen by a customer. Prior to the theft, it had been prominently displayed in the bar. 4:40pm- South Park weighs-in on the Trump administration's new dietary guidelines. 4:45pm- While speaking with the press, Gov. Tim Walz denied having ever used “inflammatory terms” that would have encouraged Minnesotans to confront federal agents attempting to enforce immigration laws. However, less than two minutes later in the very same press briefing, Walz accused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of being an “executioner.” 4:50pm- According to Polymarket, bettors see a 36% chance that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be removed from power in Iran by June 30, 2026. 5:05pm- Paula Scanlan (Early Vote Action PAC & former UPenn swimmer) & Raquel Debono (Attorney & founder of Make America Hot Again) join The Rich Zeoli Show! They discuss Zohran Mamdani being sworn in as Mayor of New York City, the Trump administration's new food pyramid, “dry” January, President Trump's great dance moves, and dating apps! 5:40pm- While speaking at Oxford Union Society, Conan O'Brien criticized liberal comedians for prioritizing critiques of President Trump over actually being funny. 6:05pm- In his latest article for National Review, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew C. McCarthy explained why, legally, the immigration officer who shot a Minneapolis woman while she allegedly attempted to strike ICE officers with her car, will not be found guilty of any crime under the Fourth Amendment and the 1985 Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Gardner. 6:15pm- Gary sits on Rich's lap. To be clear, Gary is a puppy…not a person. We promise this isn't as weird as it sounds. 6:20pm- Joe in Columbus joins the show—despite being banned from the program! 6:40pm- The Eagles are favored to win their round 1 playoff game against San Francisco, Zohran Mamdani accuses ICE agen ...

In “Kim on a Whim,” Kim warns that California's proposed billionaire wealth tax could open the door to nationwide asset taxation—even on personal items like jewelry or furniture. She and Marc argue it's a dangerous precedent that violates privacy and the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, calling it part of a broader leftist push to control private wealth. The segment expands to criticize personal property taxes, St. Louis's earnings tax, and the political rot in high-tax blue states driving residents and businesses to red states like Florida and Tennessee. Marc closes by warning that without fiscal sanity, America's economic engine could sink under progressive policies. #MarcCoxShow #KimOnAWhim #CaliforniaTax #WealthTax #MiddleClass #Taxation #BlueStateExodus #EconomicFreedom

On this episode of Registry Matters, Oklahoma's mandatory life‑without‑parole sentences for repeat serious sex offenses come under scrutiny as we look at how they strip judges of discretion and saddle taxpayers with massive long‑term costs, we then move to Wisconsin where lifetime GPS monitoring for certain registrants is facing a major Fourth Amendment challenge at...

There's an entire surveillance network popping up across the United States that has likely already captured your information, all for the non-suspicion of driving a car.Automated License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, are AI-powered cameras that scan and store an image of every single vehicle that passes their view. They are mounted onto street lights, installed under bridges, disguised in water barrels, and affixed onto telephone poles, lampposts, parking signs, and even cop cars.Once installed, these cameras capture a vehicle's license plate number, along with its make, model, and color, and any identifying features, like a bumper sticker, or damage, or even sport trim options. Because nearly every ALPR camera has an associated location, these devices can reveal where a car was headed, and at what time, and by linking data from multiple ALPRs, it's easy to determine a car's daylong route and, by proxy, it's owner's daily routine.This deeply sensitive information has been exposed in recent history.In 2024, the US Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency discovered seven vulnerabilities in cameras made by Motorola Solutions, and at the start of 2025, the outlet Wired reported that more than 150 ALPR cameras were leaking their live streams.But there's another concern with ALPRs besides data security and potential vulnerability exploits, and that's with what they store and how they're accessed.ALPRs are almost uniformly purchased and used by law enforcement. These devices have been used to help solve crime, but their databases can be accessed by police who do not live in your city, or county, or even state, and who do not need a warrant before making a search.In fact, when police access the databases managed by one major ALPR manufacturer, named Flock, one of the few guardrails those police encounter is needing to type a single word in a basic text box. When Electronic Frontier Foundation analyzed 12 million searches made by police in Flock's systems, they learned that police sometimes filled that text box with the word “protest,” meaning that police were potentially investigating activity that is protected by the First Amendment.Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Will Freeman, founder of the ALRP-tracking project DeFlock Me, about this growing tide of neighborhood surveillance and the flimsy protections afforded to everyday people.“License plate readers are a hundred percent used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment because [police] don't have to see a judge. They don't have to find probable cause. According to the policies of most police departments, they don't even have to have reasonable suspicion.”Tune in today.You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and whatever preferred podcast platform you use.For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.Show notes and credits:Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod...

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...

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

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

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

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

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