POPULARITY
Categories
32 episodes with Fourth Amendment
16 episodes with Fourth Amendment
16 episodes with Fourth Amendment
23 episodes with Fourth Amendment
13 episodes with Fourth Amendment
31 episodes with Fourth Amendment
23 episodes with Fourth Amendment
9 episodes with Fourth Amendment
14 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
12 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
29 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
10 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
2 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
17 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
2 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
2 episodes with Fourth Amendment
In this episode, we discuss the issue of recusal of the Military Judge for Appearance of Bias based on his prior role as the Special Victim Prosecutor in the same jurisdiction and during the timeframe of the alleged offenses. We further discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in the context of apparent authority from third-party consent. We additionally say goodbye and thank you to MAJ ReAnne Wentz on her last podcast and welcome Jack Bracher, a summer intern at TJAGLCS. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).
In this episode, we discuss the issue of recusal of the Military Judge for Appearance of Bias based on his prior role as the Special Victim Prosecutor in the same jurisdiction and during the timeframe of the alleged offenses. We further discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in the context of apparent authority from third-party consent. We additionally say goodbye and thank you to MAJ ReAnne Wentz on her last podcast and welcome Jack Bracher, a summer intern at TJAGLCS. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).
This Day in Legal History: Salem Witchcraft ExecutionsOn August 19, 1692, five individuals—George Burroughs, John Proctor, George Jacobs Sr., John Willard, and Martha Carrier—were executed by hanging in Salem, Massachusetts, after being convicted of witchcraft. These executions occurred during the height of the infamous Salem witch trials, a dark episode in colonial American history fueled by religious fervor, mass hysteria, and deeply flawed legal proceedings. George Burroughs, a former minister, recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows—a feat believed to be impossible for a witch—which unsettled some spectators but did not halt the execution. John Proctor, a well-respected farmer, had been openly critical of the trials and was likely targeted for his outspoken skepticism.Martha Carrier was labeled “the Queen of Hell” by her accusers, a title steeped in misogyny and fear. The trials heavily relied on spectral evidence—claims of visions and dreams—which would later be deemed inadmissible in more rational courts. Governor William Phips halted the trials just two months later, in part because of growing public backlash and the implausibility of the accusations.These executions mark one of the final mass hangings of the Salem witch trials, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 people and the imprisonment of many more. Legal scholars have since examined the trials as a case study in the dangers of due process violations, mass panic, and unchecked judicial power. In the centuries that followed, the state of Massachusetts gradually acknowledged the injustice, with the last of the condemned officially exonerated only in 2001. The Salem trials remain a cautionary tale in American legal history, illustrating how fear and ideology can warp legal institutions.The White House has been sending social media teams to accompany FBI agents during arrests in Washington, D.C., as part of President Donald Trump's recent federal takeover of the city's policing efforts. According to sources briefed on the situation, the teams are capturing footage to promote the administration's crackdown on crime, raising serious concerns among legal experts. The move is considered highly unusual and potentially problematic, as it blurs the lines between law enforcement and political messaging, potentially violating Justice Department norms meant to prevent political interference in criminal investigations.One recent example involved a professionally produced video of FBI agents arresting Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, which was posted to the White House's social media and has garnered millions of views. Legal experts warn that filming arrests—especially in non-public spaces—could infringe on suspects' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and complicate the legal proceedings by generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity.The White House has also reportedly embedded personnel within the FBI command post and is tracking arrest statistics, suggesting an unusually direct involvement in federal law enforcement operations. While the administration claims this is part of its transparency initiative, critics see it as political theater designed to favorably shape public perception. Experts argue that such tactics risk undermining public confidence in the FBI's independence and could erode the bureau's credibility.White House sending social media teams with FBI on some arrests in D.C., sources say | ReutersThe Trump administration appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director of the FBI, sharing the post with conservative media personality Dan Bongino. This newly created position signals a shift in leadership at the Bureau, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling Bailey an essential addition to the agency. Bailey, a war veteran and Missouri's attorney general since 2023, will resign his current role effective September 8.Bailey expressed gratitude for the appointment, emphasizing his commitment to supporting President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi's law enforcement agenda. Bondi, who welcomed Bailey's appointment, praised his legal and military background. Bailey had previously been mentioned as a potential pick for U.S. attorney general under Trump's second term but was not ultimately chosen.Bongino, now Bailey's co-deputy, recently made headlines for clashing with Bondi over the DOJ's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and had reportedly considered resigning. The appointment, first reported by Fox News Digital, has raised eyebrows given Bongino's media background and the political nature of the move.Missouri attorney general named as co-deputy director of FBI | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) is attempting to revise and soften a controversial proposal that would double the number of required hands-on learning credits for law students, following strong pushback from many law school deans. The updated plan, released August 15, would raise the experiential learning requirement from six to twelve credits but introduces greater flexibility and delays implementation to at least 2032.Key changes include allowing students to earn three of those credits in their first year—previously prohibited—and permitting partial credit for traditional courses that incorporate practical elements like simulated client work or drafting exercises. These adjustments aim to address concerns about feasibility, especially for part-time students or programs with limited resources.Despite these revisions, critics remain skeptical. Many deans argue that the ABA has not shown sufficient evidence that increased experiential credits would improve legal education outcomes, and they warn the rule could increase costs and overburden students and schools. Supporters, including clinical faculty, argue that more hands-on training is essential for preparing practice-ready attorneys and believe the financial concerns are overstated.Some, like Cornell's Gautam Hans, expressed cautious optimism about the changes, while others, like Northwestern's Daniel Rodriguez, say the revisions don't go far enough to address core issues, particularly the lack of data supporting the proposed changes.ABA seeks to salvage law school hands-on learning proposal amid pushback from deans | ReutersIn an exclusive at Bloomberg Law, an SEC whistleblower alleges Paul Weiss and Reed Smith helped conceal $500 million in biotech risk. Two top law firms are accused in a whistleblower complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of hiding a legal dispute that could have jeopardized a $500 million biotech merger. The complaint, obtained exclusively by Bloomberg Law, was filed by Joel Cohen—best known for co-writing Toy Story—who claims he and his wife were defrauded out of at least $38 million by Sofie Biosciences Inc.Cohen alleges Sofie and its lawyers concealed his legal threats from disclosures during the company's majority-stake sale to private equity firm Trilantic North America. Central to the dispute is Sofie's use of a $2.5 million appraisal from Kroll LLC to value a cancer-imaging facility acquired in 2019—an amount Cohen claims was intentionally low in order to reduce his and other noteholders' payout in Series B preferred shares.The whistleblower complaint accuses Paul Weiss partner Jeffrey Marell and Reed Smith partner Michael Sanders of knowingly excluding Cohen's legal demands from merger documents, possibly violating federal securities laws. Internal emails cited in the complaint show Sofie executives feared the deal would fall apart if Cohen's claims became public.Sofie and its legal team argue Cohen waived his rights through broad releases signed during the merger and that the appraisal complied with contractual terms. However, Cohen and his wife had assigned their claims to a separate LLC, which the whistleblower says was not covered by those waivers.Two related lawsuits filed in California claim that Reed Smith represented conflicting interests and helped structure the asset financing in a way that disadvantaged noteholders. The firm denies any wrongdoing and says it never represented Cohen or the other lenders. A court ruling is expected soon on whether Cohen can access documents related to the Kroll valuation.Paul Weiss, Reed Smith Accused of Coverup by SEC WhistleblowerIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about state sales tax kickback schemes. Louisiana's 2012 “procurement processing program” was originally promoted as a way to support research and development, but instead has funneled the vast majority of collected sales tax—over 90% in some years—back to consultants and out-of-state companies. The scheme works by enticing payment processing subsidiaries to reroute sales through Louisiana, allowing the state to collect taxes on transactions that didn't actually occur within its borders. These taxes were meant to support research institutions, but in practice, virtually none of the funds have reached them. In 2023 alone, $67 million of the $73 million collected was rebated, and 2022 figures were worse.This program reflects a broader issue across many states: public incentive deals are being handed out with little to no accountability. Unlike private contracts, where each party protects its own interests and can demand repayment when promises aren't kept, public deals often lack enforceable clawback provisions. Louisiana does include a limited recapture clause in its statute—but it only ensures proper paperwork, not fulfillment of public benefits.Other states like California have taken modest steps, such as requiring disclosure of such deals, but few have adopted strong clawback mechanisms. Until public incentive agreements require concrete, verifiable results to justify tax rebates—and include provisions to recover funds when promises fall through—they risk becoming little more than tax shelters for private interests.Louisiana's Tax-Share Problems Prove Clawbacks Must Be Standard 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
01:00:46 – Trump–Putin Summit & Global TensionsAnalysis of the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin, with focus on egos driving geopolitics, the EU's role backing Zelensky, and risks of escalation. 01:05:39 – Clinton Foundation Investigations BuriedNineteen separate Clinton Foundation probes were shut down under Biden's DOJ, tied to Haiti operations, bribery, and “pay-to-play” dealings. 01:16:57 – Land-for-Peace RejectedPutin's offer to freeze front lines in exchange for recognition of eastern Ukraine was rejected by Zelensky and EU leaders, raising questions of loyalty to their citizens. 01:19:30 – Crimea's History & NATO InterestsCrimea's deep historical and cultural ties to Russia are explored, alongside NATO's strategic motives and Europe's role in blocking peace. 01:23:44 – Zelensky, the “Prostitute President”European leaders rush to prop up Zelensky ahead of his U.S. visit, while critics paint him as corrupt and willing to trade his people's lives for power. 01:40:36 – Mail-In Voting & Rigged ElectionsCriticism of mail-in voting as inherently insecure and ripe for fraud. Reference is made to Jimmy Carter's past warnings, contrasted with today's widespread ballot distribution. 02:17:30 – USDA, PRIME Act & Food FreedomDebate over the PRIME Act, which would allow states to distribute locally slaughtered meat. Strong critique of the USDA as unconstitutional overreach, arguing food safety should be handled at the local and state level. 02:52:34 – Near-Death Experiences & Hospice WorkAnecdotes about patients suddenly regaining lucidity before death, described as common in hospice care. Discussion highlights spiritual elements of dying, along with the emotional toll on caregivers. 03:02:59 – Farming, Trucking & Corporate AccountabilityListeners discuss livestock care, dangers of trucking, and frustration with corporations escaping accountability. The segment ends with a transition to brewing unrest in the UK over government double standards. 03:07:15 – Migrant Crime & Police Double StandardsA migrant trespasses into a woman's home in England and is released without charges, while a woman is arrested multiple times for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, highlighting a two-tiered justice system. 03:12:59 – Crackdown on Protesters vs. Protection for MigrantsPolice arrest locals protesting a migrant hotel while shielding the trespassing asylum seeker, fueling concerns of authoritarian policing and civil unrest in Britain. 03:19:56 – DC Police Roadblocks & Martial LawFocus on U.S. checkpoints in Washington, D.C. and erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, tied to Trump's accelerationist law-and-order policies. 03:31:21 – AI Dependence & Human AtrophyReliance on AI is compared to physical atrophy, with references to “WALL-E” and stroke recovery, warning that outsourcing thought undermines human capability. 03:52:44 – AI Surveillance & Metadata ControlExplores radar eavesdropping, Stingray devices, and Palantir's metadata systems, warning that AI-driven surveillance empowers state control. 03:57:17 – AI Job Loss & Police State ExpansionNotes that AI threatens white-collar jobs like doctors and lawyers while reinforcing bipartisan authoritarian policing. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
01:00:46 – Trump–Putin Summit & Global TensionsAnalysis of the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin, with focus on egos driving geopolitics, the EU's role backing Zelensky, and risks of escalation. 01:05:39 – Clinton Foundation Investigations BuriedNineteen separate Clinton Foundation probes were shut down under Biden's DOJ, tied to Haiti operations, bribery, and “pay-to-play” dealings. 01:16:57 – Land-for-Peace RejectedPutin's offer to freeze front lines in exchange for recognition of eastern Ukraine was rejected by Zelensky and EU leaders, raising questions of loyalty to their citizens. 01:19:30 – Crimea's History & NATO InterestsCrimea's deep historical and cultural ties to Russia are explored, alongside NATO's strategic motives and Europe's role in blocking peace. 01:23:44 – Zelensky, the “Prostitute President”European leaders rush to prop up Zelensky ahead of his U.S. visit, while critics paint him as corrupt and willing to trade his people's lives for power. 01:40:36 – Mail-In Voting & Rigged ElectionsCriticism of mail-in voting as inherently insecure and ripe for fraud. Reference is made to Jimmy Carter's past warnings, contrasted with today's widespread ballot distribution. 02:17:30 – USDA, PRIME Act & Food FreedomDebate over the PRIME Act, which would allow states to distribute locally slaughtered meat. Strong critique of the USDA as unconstitutional overreach, arguing food safety should be handled at the local and state level. 02:52:34 – Near-Death Experiences & Hospice WorkAnecdotes about patients suddenly regaining lucidity before death, described as common in hospice care. Discussion highlights spiritual elements of dying, along with the emotional toll on caregivers. 03:02:59 – Farming, Trucking & Corporate AccountabilityListeners discuss livestock care, dangers of trucking, and frustration with corporations escaping accountability. The segment ends with a transition to brewing unrest in the UK over government double standards. 03:07:15 – Migrant Crime & Police Double StandardsA migrant trespasses into a woman's home in England and is released without charges, while a woman is arrested multiple times for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, highlighting a two-tiered justice system. 03:12:59 – Crackdown on Protesters vs. Protection for MigrantsPolice arrest locals protesting a migrant hotel while shielding the trespassing asylum seeker, fueling concerns of authoritarian policing and civil unrest in Britain. 03:19:56 – DC Police Roadblocks & Martial LawFocus on U.S. checkpoints in Washington, D.C. and erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, tied to Trump's accelerationist law-and-order policies. 03:31:21 – AI Dependence & Human AtrophyReliance on AI is compared to physical atrophy, with references to “WALL-E” and stroke recovery, warning that outsourcing thought undermines human capability. 03:52:44 – AI Surveillance & Metadata ControlExplores radar eavesdropping, Stingray devices, and Palantir's metadata systems, warning that AI-driven surveillance empowers state control. 03:57:17 – AI Job Loss & Police State ExpansionNotes that AI threatens white-collar jobs like doctors and lawyers while reinforcing bipartisan authoritarian policing. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
Three out of 10 people have trouble falling and staying asleep. Jennifer Senior, staff writer for The Atlantic, explains why many commonly recommended solutions can only go so far. The Wall Street Journal’s Matt Grossman lays out why some economists are concerned about Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rachel Uranga with the Los Angeles Times discusses the administration’s aggressive immigration raids in L.A., and how they may have violated the Fourth Amendment. Plus, Trump prepares for his meeting with Putin, why Americans are drinking less, and Taylor Swift releases details of her upcoming album, ‘The Life of a Showgirl.’ Today’s episode was hosted by Shumita Basu.
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.
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.
It's been a wild week on the legal front for former President Donald Trump and his administration, bringing a cascade of courtroom drama that's anything but routine. Right now, no case seems more pivotal than the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where all eleven judges—an extraordinary en banc session—are sizing up whether Trump actually had the authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports without Congress signing off. This stems from the consolidated lawsuits led by V.O.S. Selections and a coalition of twelve states, who claim the tariffs drowned their businesses in costs and snuffed out competition. Lawyers for both sides have traded blows, and judges appear skeptical of the administration's broad assertion of executive power. A permanent injunction has already blocked future tariffs, but Trump's team is fighting hard to overturn it, hoping the appeals court will side with the White House. The stakes here are sky-high, not just for trade policy but potentially for the limits of presidential power.Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a lawsuit filed last Friday by a battalion of states accuses President Trump of unlawfully targeting gender-affirming care for minors, citing executive actions that closed clinics across California, New York, and Illinois. Hospitals are reportedly halting services in response to Trump's executive order. The coalition is challenging both the lawfulness and constitutionality of these actions, and the case has swept up top federal officials, including Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi.The legal frenzy doesn't stop there. The National Association of the Deaf is suing Trump for axing American Sign Language services during federal briefings. Their case in Washington, D.C. is making waves, demanding interpreters be restored and arguing that removing them violates disability rights and foundational First Amendment protections.Immigration has also burst onto center stage in California, with the Trump administration urgently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge's ban on immigration stops. The judge's order, handed down in Los Angeles, said agents can't detain people solely based on their race or the language they speak. At the core of the dispute is a massive sweep of undocumented immigrants from June, now dubbed the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in history. Pro-immigrant groups rushed to court, arguing the raids trampled on Fourth Amendment protections. The government, for its part, insists these restrictions threaten immigration enforcement and is hoping the Supreme Court lifts the ban on these operations soon.And for those tracking every legal twist, the Trump Administration Litigation Tracker is following nearly 300 active cases across the nation, from executive orders on birthright citizenship to bans on DEIA initiatives. As rulings drop and appeals climb toward the highest courts, the next few weeks will be decisive.Thanks for tuning in. Join us again next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! 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
In this motion to suppress, Bryan Kohberger's defense team argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights during his December 2022 arrest by relying on a legally insufficient arrest warrant. The defense claims the Idaho arrest warrant had no legal authority in Pennsylvania, where Kohberger was apprehended, and that Pennsylvania authorities were required to obtain their own warrant to lawfully enter the home. Citing both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, the defense argues that the forced entry into the home without a Pennsylvania-issued warrant rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The motion also criticizes the heavily armed SWAT raid, despite federal surveillance showing Kohberger to be unarmed and nonviolent, and seeks suppression of any statements or evidence gathered during and after the arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds.Furthermore, the defense alleges that the affidavit used to support the Idaho arrest warrant was flawed, asserting that it included information gathered through unconstitutional means — including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and invalid cellphone data — and that it omitted material facts necessary for a fair probable cause determination. They have requested a Franks hearing, which challenges the integrity of the affidavit by asserting that law enforcement either recklessly or intentionally excluded key information. They argue that once tainted or improperly gathered information is removed, the warrant lacks sufficient probable cause, and therefore all resulting evidence and statements must be excluded from trial. The motion frames the arrest as a product of procedural shortcuts and overreach, violating both state and federal constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In this episode we discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in the context where a private actor takes the property of another person and gives it to law enforcement. We address the particularity requirement under Military Rule of Evidence 311, requests for return of property from law enforcement, and the exclusionary rule. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).
In this episode we discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in the context where a private actor takes the property of another person and gives it to law enforcement. We address the particularity requirement under Military Rule of Evidence 311, requests for return of property from law enforcement, and the exclusionary rule. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).
At Black Hat USA 2025, Jennifer Granick—Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union—takes the keynote stage to make a bold case: we are long overdue for a new threat model, one that sees government surveillance not as a background risk, but as a primary threat to constitutional privacy.Granick draws from decades of experience defending hackers, fighting surveillance overreach, and engaging with the security community since DEFCON 3. She challenges the audience to reconsider outdated assumptions about how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted and applied. While technology has made it easier than ever for governments to collect data, the legal system hasn't kept pace—and in many cases, fails to recognize the sheer scope and sensitivity of personal information exposed through modern services.Her talk doesn't just raise alarm; it calls for action. Granick suggests that while legal reform is sluggish—stymied by a lack of political will and lobbying power—there's an urgent opportunity for the technical community to step up. From encryption to data minimization and anonymization, technologists have the tools to protect civil liberties even when the law falls short.The session promises to be a wake-up call for engineers, designers, policymakers, and privacy advocates. Granick wants attendees to leave not only more informed, but motivated to build systems that limit the unnecessary collection, retention, and exposure of personal data.Her keynote also surfaces a critical cultural shift: from the “Spot the Fed” days of DEFCON to a more nuanced understanding of government roles—welcoming collaboration where it serves the public good, but not at the expense of unchecked surveillance.This conversation reframes privacy as a design problem as much as a legal one—and one that requires collective effort to address. If the law can't fix it, the question becomes: will the technology community rise to the challenge?___________Guest:Jennifer Granick, Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel at American Civil Liberties Union | On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifergranick/Hosts:Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine | Website: https://www.seanmartin.comMarco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine | Website: https://www.marcociappelli.com___________Episode SponsorsThreatLocker: https://itspm.ag/threatlocker-r974BlackCloak: https://itspm.ag/itspbcwebAkamai: https://itspm.ag/akamailbwcDropzoneAI: https://itspm.ag/dropzoneai-641Stellar Cyber: https://itspm.ag/stellar-9dj3___________ResourcesKeynote: Threat Modeling and Constitutional Law: https://www.blackhat.com/us-25/briefings/schedule/index.html#keynote-threat-modeling-and-constitutional-law-48276Learn more and catch more stories from our Black Hat USA 2025 coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/bhusa25ITSPmagazine Webinar: What's Heating Up Before Black Hat 2025: Place Your Bet on the Top Trends Set to Shake Up this Year's Hacker Conference — An ITSPmagazine Thought Leadership Webinar | https://www.crowdcast.io/c/whats-heating-up-before-black-hat-2025-place-your-bet-on-the-top-trends-set-to-shake-up-this-years-hacker-conferenceCatch all of our event coverage: https://www.itspmagazine.com/technology-and-cybersecurity-conference-coverageWant to tell your Brand Story Briefing as part of our event coverage? Learn More
Send us a textDr. Robert Jackson welcomes constitutional attorney and scholar Joe Wolverton to the More Than Medicine studio for a revealing conversation about American liberty and our constitutional foundations. Wolverton, who serves as the constitutional law scholar for the John Birch Society, shares the story of his journey from Fourth Amendment defender to full-time liberty advocate.The centerpiece of their discussion revolves around Wolverton's groundbreaking new educational series, "Blueprint for Liberty." This comprehensive program addresses a troubling reality: even among patriots and conservatives, fundamental constitutional knowledge is severely lacking. Wolverton explains how the series takes viewers back to basics—examining what powers were granted to the federal government, who granted those powers, and where those enumerated powers are found in the Constitution.Particularly enlightening is Wolverton's clarification of commonly misunderstood constitutional principles. He dismantles the widespread misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause, explaining that it establishes the Constitution—not the federal government—as supreme. Federal laws are only supreme when made "in pursuance of the Constitution," not in violation of it. The conversation also touches on constitutional requirements for sound money, the three branches' specific powers, and how citizens can actively participate in restoring constitutional governance. As Wolverton notes, "Once you've been warned, you should warn your neighbor"—but many well-intentioned Americans simply don't know how to effectively engage.Ready to deepen your constitutional understanding? The "Blueprint for Liberty" series debuts this September at a leadership conference near Valley Forge featuring General Flynn as keynote speaker, after which it will be available online and on DVD. Visit jbs.org for more information about this initiative designed not to make money, but to "make patriots" equipped to defend their God-given rights.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/
Join Rachel and John this week as they address disappearing federal information, terminated grants for Alaskan farmers, the freezing and unfreezing of appropriated money, and how the Fourth Amendment applies to your smart phone at the border.
In this episode, we're diving into a critical legal issue that affects landowners across the country — the Open Fields Doctrine. Our guests, Robert Frommer and Joshua Windham of the Institute for Justice, break down how this century-old legal doctrine allows government officials to enter private rural land without a warrant. If you own land, work in agriculture, or care about constitutional rights, this is a conversation you won't want to miss. Contact info for Robert Frommer Website Contact info for Joshua Windham Website Links to Topics Mentioned on the Show Devillier v. Texas - Blog George Mason Law Review Forum The Open Fields Doctrine: America's "Uncommon" Mistake Indochen Pepe's Pizzeria Napoletana Podcast Sponsors Capital Farm Credit, AgTrust Farm Credit, Texas Corn Producers, Braun & Gresham, Plains Land Bank, Plateau Land & Wildlife Management, and AgTexas
Send us a textIn this week's roundup of cannabis legalization news, we cover key stories ending on July 20th, 2025. Highlights include a bill signed by Trump, which aims to criminalize fentanyl while potentially unlocking research on cannabis and psychedelics. The Senate's advancement of bills to continue medical marijuana protections and address state law news is discussed, along with updates on science news and anticipated federal changes. We also discuss the tumultuous legal environment around ICE detainments, Pennsylvania's slow legislative progress on cannabis, and the recent court case of a Virginia firefighter denied for medical marijuana use. Additionally, we explore the impact of cannabis legalization on home values, upcoming dispensary openings, and current issues surrounding industrial hemp farming. Stay tuned to learn about the latest developments and what they mean for the future of cannabis.00:00 Weekly Cannabis Legalization News Roundup02:03 Trump Signs Fentanyl Criminalization Bill05:03 Senate Advances Medical Marijuana Protections09:28 Pennsylvania's Struggle with Cannabis Legislation15:06 Building a Dispensary in Pekin, Illinois21:05 ICE Raid on Glass House Farms29:51 Norfolk Firefighter's Medical Marijuana Appeal40:38 The Origin of Poisoned Cannabis41:20 The Escapism of Spray Packs42:04 Delaware's Recreational Marijuana Sales42:44 USDA's Stance on Marijuana43:28 Synthetic Drugs and Legal Loopholes44:33 The Future of Cannabis Legalization52:11 Hemp and Industrial Uses54:23 Federal Regulation and Market Dynamics56:31 Cannabis Consumption Lounges00:05 Cannabis Legalization News Wrap-Up21:38 Gestapo Tactics and Government Overreach22:11 Fourth Amendment and Presidential Terms23:10 Glasshouse Farms Controversy25:26 Interstate Commerce and Cannabis28:15 Cannabis Quality and Economics29:51 Medical Marijuana and Legal Challenges32:08 Hemp and Legalization Efforts33:51 Cannabis Strain Game and Marketing38:47 Cannabis Legalization News and Updates56:55 Tribal Legalization and Federal LegislationSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu
The sources discuss the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. They explain that a search occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy is violated, and a seizure involves meaningful interference with a person's possessory interests or freedom of movement. While a warrant based on probable cause is generally required, numerous exceptions to the warrant rule exist, such as exigent circumstances, consent, and searches incident to arrest. The exclusionary rule serves as the primary remedy for violations, rendering illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court, though it too has several exceptions. The sources also highlight the evolving interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in light of advancing technology.Olmstead v. United States narrowly defined a search based on physical trespass, meaning wiretapping without physical intrusion was not a search. Katz v. United States broadened this, holding that a search occurs when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy," shifting the focus from places to people.Justice Harlan's two-prong test states that a search occurs if (1) the individual exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) society recognizes that expectation as objectively reasonable. Both prongs must be met for Fourth Amendment protections to apply.According to United States v. Mendenhall, a seizure of a person occurs when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, an individual's freedom of movement is restrained, and a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave due to police conduct.A police officer may conduct a "Terry stop" and frisk when they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual is armed and dangerous. This limited pat-down is specifically for weapons to ensure officer safety.For a valid search warrant, it must be (1) based on probable cause, (2) supported by an oath or affirmation, and (3) particularly describe the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized.Illinois v. Gates replaced the rigid two-pronged test from previous cases with a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach for determining probable cause. This allows judges to consider all relevant factors, including the reliability of an informant's tip, in a more flexible manner.The "automobile exception" allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The rationale is based on the vehicle's inherent mobility, which makes obtaining a warrant impractical, and a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct by making evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings. Mapp v. Ohio extended this rule to the states.Two exceptions to the exclusionary rule are:Good Faith Exception: Evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant, later found to be defective, may still be admitted if the officers acted in good faith.Inevitable Discovery: Evidence will not be excluded if the prosecution can demonstrate it would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, regardless of the initial unlawful search.Riley v. California held that police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest, recognizing the vast amount of personal data on modern devices. Carpenter v. United States ruled that accessing historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, reining in the third-party doctrine for comprehensive digital location data.
From February 14, 2023: Last month's brutal murder of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police has once again sparked a national conversation about the causes of and remedies for persistent police misconduct and abuse. To explore this issue, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at UCLA School of Law, who is the author of a new book called, “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.” The book argues that police abuse is a result of pervasive pathologies in the legal system that shield from accountability not just police officers, but also their supervisors and the local governments for which they work.Joanna and Jack discussed the many accountability gaps in the legal regime governing police abuse. Like her book, they focused on problems of achieving justice through the civil rights system, problems that include the high bars to finding a lawyer and to convincing a judge to hear the case, Fourth Amendment doctrine, qualified immunity, and the challenges of municipal liability. They also discussed the best path to reform and the prospects of reform.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump's law enforcement agents have been violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the way they have been conducting mass immigrations sweeps in California. In language as clear as it is compelling, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said in her ruling and order: "Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump's law enforcement agents have been violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the way they have been conducting mass immigrations sweeps in California. In language as clear as it is compelling, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said in her ruling and order: "Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
A Sacramento Lawsuit and the Fight for Police Accountability In the latest episode of Everyday Injustice, host David Greenwald sits down with civil rights attorney Marissa Hatton of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and community activist Meg White to examine a pivotal case against the Sacramento Police Department. The lawsuit, stemming from police violence during the George Floyd protests in 2020, sheds light on the city's response to racial justice demonstrations and the long road toward accountability and reform. Despite a monetary settlement, plaintiffs and advocates remain deeply frustrated by the court's refusal to impose lasting injunctive relief. Hatton recounts the harrowing details behind the legal battle, which challenged the Sacramento Police Department not only for excessive force—including the widespread use of chemical agents and rubber bullets—but also for viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. While the court ruled that the department had violated the Fourth Amendment by using unlawful force and failing to train or discipline its officers, it stopped short of mandating policy changes to prevent future misconduct. For many, including the plaintiffs, that decision leaves them vulnerable to repeat abuse. Meg White, one of six plaintiffs, offers an unflinching firsthand account of what it felt like to be maced, beaten, and traumatized during what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. White's experience—shared by hundreds of demonstrators—illustrates a pattern of police escalation and indiscriminate retaliation. The contrast between the violent crackdown on racial justice protesters and the relative restraint shown to Stop the Steal demonstrators is a key element of the case, revealing a disturbing double standard in how law enforcement responds to dissenting voices. Though the court acknowledged a pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct, the ruling left systemic change off the table—deepening public distrust. As the conversation turns toward ongoing protests and growing authoritarianism across the country, this episode is both a sobering postmortem of one city's failures and a warning about what happens when legal victories don't translate into institutional reform. Hatton and White make one thing painfully clear: without accountability and structural change, the injustice will repeat itself.
“What Kilmar Abrego Garcia's family is going through is just unimaginable,” says Baltimore-based journalist Baynard Woods, “but it is also what we've all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure, such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa and Woods discuss the US government's case against Abrego Garcia—whom the Trump administration finally returned to US soil from El Salvador in June—and what the government can do to citizens and non-citizens alike when our right to due process is taken away.Guest:Baynard Woods is a writer and journalist based in Baltimore. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Oxford American Magazine, and many other publications. He is the author of Inheritance: An Autobiography of Whiteness and coauthor, with Brandon Soderberg, of I Got a Monster: The Rise and Fall of America's Most Corrupt Police Squad.Additional resources:Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “Government's case against Abrego Garcia is based on PG County Cop who was on the SA's do not call list”Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “A Maryland man's life is at stake. Trump and Salvadoran president Bukele could not care less”Credits:Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron GranadinoHelp us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast
“What Kilmar Abrego Garcia's family is going through is just unimaginable,” says Baltimore-based journalist Baynard Woods, “but it is also what we've all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure, such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa and Woods discuss the US government's case against Abrego Garcia—whom the Trump administration finally returned to US soil from El Salvador in June—and what the government can do to citizens and non-citizens alike when our right to due process is taken away.Guest:Baynard Woods is a writer and journalist based in Baltimore. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Oxford American Magazine, and many other publications. He is the author of Inheritance: An Autobiography of Whiteness and coauthor, with Brandon Soderberg, of I Got a Monster: The Rise and Fall of America's Most Corrupt Police Squad.Additional resources:Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “Government's case against Abrego Garcia is based on PG County Cop who was on the SA's do not call list”Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “A Maryland man's life is at stake. Trump and Salvadoran president Bukele could not care less”Credits:Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron GranadinoHelp us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast
In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.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, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.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, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.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, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.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, the defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, sought to suppress genetic evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) and a subsequent "trash pull," arguing that these methods violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His legal team contended that law enforcement's use of IGG techniques to identify him as a suspect, followed by the collection of familial DNA from discarded trash, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. They asserted that such investigative methods required a warrant and that their use without one infringed upon Kohberger's expectation of privacy regarding his genetic information.The court, however, rejected these arguments, ruling that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over genetic material lawfully obtained from public databases and trash discarded in a public space. The judge determined that law enforcement's methods were legally sound and did not violate constitutional protections. As a result, the genetic evidence collected through IGG and the trash pull remains admissible in court, dealing a significant blow to Kohberger's defense strategyto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Is your financial life really private? In this eye-opening episode, Cato Institute's Norbert Michel and Nicholas Anthony take us deep into the world of financial surveillance, starting with the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. What was originally sold as a tool to catch tax cheats has quietly evolved into a sprawling system of government oversight—with banks and financial institutions acting as unwitting watchdogs. From suspicious activity reports to the third-party doctrine, Norbert and Nicholas explain how the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections has happened largely out of public view. They break down the law's legacy, how it expanded post-9/11, and why $10,000 isn't the large sum it once was. But there's reason for optimism. With growing public awareness, privacy-focused tech, and new reform legislation finally on the table, change might be within reach. If you thought your bank account was your business, think again—this episode will make you see it in a whole new light.Show Notes:Norbert Michel and Jennifer J. Schulp, "Revising the Bank Secrecy Act to Protect Privacy and Deter Criminals" Policy Analysis No. 932, July 26, 2022Nicholas Anthony, "The Right to Financial Privacy" Policy Analysis No. 945, May 2, 2023Norbert Michel, "The Bank Secrecy Act Is a Bigger Threat than FISA" Forbes, April 17, 2024Nicholas Anthony and Naomi Brockwell, "The Illusion of Financial Privacy" Reason.com, May 30, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Online Privacy and Law Enforcement Access: "We're arguing that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we use these platforms. If we wanted our identity out there, we wouldn't conceal it with a pen name or a handle or whatever you use, a username. And by creating these alternative names, we are telling the world we don't want everybody to have access to my true identity." - Steve PalmerWe're living in a world where so much of our personal information is online, from Snapchat and Instagram to emails and cell phone records. I break down exactly what law enforcement has to do to get their hands on your private data. Do they require a search warrant, or is a simple subpoena sufficient? I explain how the Fourth Amendment applies and discuss your rights regarding privacy on these digital platforms.I share some real examples from my own legal practice and explore what the federal Stored Communications Act says about these issues. We'll also take a look at some key Supreme Court cases that shape how this all plays out. And if you think this isn't relevant to you just because you're a law-abiding citizen, I'll tell you why privacy protections should matter to everyone.Here are my 3 key takeaways for you:The Stored Communications Act & SubpoenasLaw enforcement can sometimes gain access to account information (like your identity on Snapchat) with just a subpoena, not a full search warrant. This distinction is important because a subpoena is much easier to obtain than a search warrant.The Fourth Amendment Still MattersThe Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches, and the expectation of privacy extends to our digital lives. In many cases, courts are leaning toward requiring a search warrant (with probable cause) for authorities to access sensitive information, especially after landmark cases like Carpenter v. United States.Your Digital Identity Deserves ProtectionThere's an ongoing legal debate: Should police need a higher standard (a search warrant) to access your hidden or pseudonymous social media identities? My answer: Yes. Protecting personal privacy—even for law-abiding citizens—is foundational, no matter how convenient the shortcut for investigators.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...
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
Send us a messageConstitutional rights take center stage in this raw, unfiltered episode as we dive deep into recent controversies surrounding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). When federal agents attempted to enter Dodger Stadium without warrants, the organization stood their ground—but what happened at the Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet tells a different story. We break down exactly what the Fourth Amendment protects and why every American should understand these fundamental rights.The conversation shifts to global tensions as we examine the escalating situation between Iran, Israel, and the United States. With the FBI ramping up surveillance on potential "sleeper cells" within American borders, we discuss what this means for national security and everyday citizens. These aren't just distant conflicts—they have real implications for communities across the country.Throughout our discussion, we challenge mainstream narratives and encourage listeners to question what they're hearing from conventional news sources. Whether addressing constitutional protections, immigration enforcement, or international relations, we offer perspectives you won't find in typical media coverage.Our passionate reminder remains the same: know your rights. These aren't privileges granted by the government—they're fundamental protections guaranteed by the Constitution. When authorities approach your door, stop your car, or enter private property, understanding these rights can make all the difference. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and remember that an educated citizenry is essential for preserving the freedoms we all cherish.Support the showSupport our podcast paypal.me/theetalkerspodcastE-Mail: theetalkers4us@gmail.com https://theetalkers.buzzsprout.com/shareFacebookthee•talkers•podacast (@theetalkers_podcast) | Instagramtheetalkers_podcast1 - Twitch(3) Theetalkers1 (@theetalkers1) / TwitterThee Talkers Podcast: Unscripted - YouTubepatreon.com/theetalkerspodtiktok.com/@theetalkerspodcasttheetalkers.buzzsprout.comhttp://streaming.radio.co/s2bfbdb755/listen.m3u
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Send us a textThe ongoing activities throughout the U.S. by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been dominating the news cycle recently and concerns and questions are growing about what to do if you or someone you love has an interaction with ICE at your place of employment, school or inside your community. Association boards face unique challenges in today's immigration environment. Should boards and their management professionals screen residents for immigration status? What about the employees of association vendors or the residents' employees? In this week's Take It To The Board podcast, host Donna DiMaggio Berger sits down with immigration law expert Ira Kurzban (he literally wrote THE BOOK on Immigration Law) for a behind-the-scenes look at his Supreme Court arguments, current ICE enforcement tactics, and a comprehensive discussion on what could happen if federal agents arrive at private residential communities.A personal story sets the stage as Ira shares how his father arrived alone from Romania at age 12. This profound connection to immigration fueled Ira's decades-long legal advocacy, including arguing McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center before the Supreme Court – a landmark case that preserved judicial review of constitutional challenges to the immigration system.The conversation shifts to practical concerns for community associations as immigration enforcement intensifies. Donna and Ira deliver clear guidance on Fourth Amendment protections, explaining the critical distinction between administrative and judicial warrants when ICE agents appear at association properties. They emphasize that private communities retain significant rights to verify warrants and protect resident privacy.Whether you serve on a board, manage a community, or simply care about constitutional rights, this conversation provides essential insights for navigating the complex intersection of immigration enforcement and private property rights. Listen now to understand what's at stake when federal authorities knock on your community's door.Conversation Highlights: Why social media has significantly influenced both immigration policy and public perception of immigrantsWhat key immigration reform Ira recommends for today's policymakers and why it mattersHow certain countries are successfully balancing border protection with legal immigration and population growthWhy board members and property managers should understand their legal rights and obligations when immigration authorities approach private residential communitiesWhat immediate, informed actions boards need to take if ICE arrives at a property to avoid facing legal consequences How Ira prepared for and argued the landmark McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and its impact on immigration lawHow immigration law is expected to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years and what factors will drive that changeRelated Links:Article: Miami Herald Op Ed: In South Florida, when ICE comes knocking, how should your HOA react?Book: Kurzbans Immigration Law Sourcebook, 15th EditionArticle: Becker Service Announcement: Florida's New Immigration LawBiography: Ira Kurzban
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
00:02:31 - 00:03:49: Palantir's development of a centralizedsurveillance database under the Trump administration, merginggovernment data to track citizens, linked to Peter Thiel and CIA'sIn-Q-Tel.00:23:42 - 00:25:42: Palantir's database criticized as a FourthAmendment violation, enabling a digital general warrant that compilesextensive personal data, eroding constitutional protections.01:07:27 - 01:08:51: Palantir's geospatial and anticipatoryintelligence compared to “Pre-Crime,” with the internet as asurveillance tool, and Palantir depicted as the “Eye of Sauron.”01:20:21 - 01:22:54: Ukraine's deployment of drone swarms from trucksto destroy Russian bombers, highlighting the shift to cost-effective,autonomous warfare with significant strategic impact.01:31:06 - 01:33:55: Ukraine's drone attack framed as a modern PearlHarbor, revealing Russia's outdated military and U.S. vulnerability toasymmetric drone warfare, advocating peace over escalation.01:38:27 - 01:39:40: Ukrainian sabotage derailing trains in Russia'sBryansk and Kursk regions, killing seven and injuring others, seen asterrorism to disrupt peace talks, with possible Western involvement.(Added back for its intriguing suggestion of covert Westerninvolvement in escalating conflict, tying into geopoliticalmanipulation.)01:54:47 - 01:58:45: Geese Busters exposes a duck farm's false birdflu claim, with only 2-3 sick birds, suggesting governmentmanipulation to justify culling and farmer payouts.02:06:48 - 02:08:29: Geese Busters theorizes government culling ofbirds to clear airspace for drones, as birds attack drones, posingrisks to surveillance and weaponized drone operations, with anecdotesof hawks targeting drones. (Added back for its unique connectionbetween bird culling and drone surveillance, enhancing thesurveillance and warfare narrative.)02:11:40 - 02:13:43: Critique of inhumane government methods likesuffocating poultry with foam, driven by false bird flu claims,incentivizing farmers with large payouts, inflating food prices, anddisrupting supply chains. (Added back for its expose ofgovernment-driven food supply manipulation, linking to broader controlmechanisms.)02:55:19 - 02:58:11: Ukrainian billionaire Vadim Nova detailsZelensky's persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, banning itand imprisoning clergy, underscoring his dictatorial rule backed bythe West. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” […]
00:02:31 - 00:03:49: Palantir's development of a centralizedsurveillance database under the Trump administration, merginggovernment data to track citizens, linked to Peter Thiel and CIA'sIn-Q-Tel.00:23:42 - 00:25:42: Palantir's database criticized as a FourthAmendment violation, enabling a digital general warrant that compilesextensive personal data, eroding constitutional protections.01:07:27 - 01:08:51: Palantir's geospatial and anticipatoryintelligence compared to “Pre-Crime,” with the internet as asurveillance tool, and Palantir depicted as the “Eye of Sauron.”01:20:21 - 01:22:54: Ukraine's deployment of drone swarms from trucksto destroy Russian bombers, highlighting the shift to cost-effective,autonomous warfare with significant strategic impact.01:31:06 - 01:33:55: Ukraine's drone attack framed as a modern PearlHarbor, revealing Russia's outdated military and U.S. vulnerability toasymmetric drone warfare, advocating peace over escalation.01:38:27 - 01:39:40: Ukrainian sabotage derailing trains in Russia'sBryansk and Kursk regions, killing seven and injuring others, seen asterrorism to disrupt peace talks, with possible Western involvement.(Added back for its intriguing suggestion of covert Westerninvolvement in escalating conflict, tying into geopoliticalmanipulation.)01:54:47 - 01:58:45: Geese Busters exposes a duck farm's false birdflu claim, with only 2-3 sick birds, suggesting governmentmanipulation to justify culling and farmer payouts.02:06:48 - 02:08:29: Geese Busters theorizes government culling ofbirds to clear airspace for drones, as birds attack drones, posingrisks to surveillance and weaponized drone operations, with anecdotesof hawks targeting drones. (Added back for its unique connectionbetween bird culling and drone surveillance, enhancing thesurveillance and warfare narrative.)02:11:40 - 02:13:43: Critique of inhumane government methods likesuffocating poultry with foam, driven by false bird flu claims,incentivizing farmers with large payouts, inflating food prices, anddisrupting supply chains. (Added back for its expose ofgovernment-driven food supply manipulation, linking to broader controlmechanisms.)02:55:19 - 02:58:11: Ukrainian billionaire Vadim Nova detailsZelensky's persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, banning itand imprisoning clergy, underscoring his dictatorial rule backed bythe West. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from hiatus – briefly! I've used the hiatus well, skiing the Canadian Ski Marathon, trekking through Patagonia, and having a heart valve repaired (all good now!). So when I saw (and disagreed with ) Orin Kerr's new book, I figured it was time for episode 502 of the Cyberlaw Podcast. Orin and I spend the episode digging into his book, The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World. The book is part theory, part casebook, part policy roadmap—and somehow still manages to be readable, even for non-lawyers. Orin's goal? To make sense of how the Fourth Amendment should apply in a world of smartphones, cloud storage, government-preserved Facebook accounts, and surveillance everywhere. The core notion of the book is “equilibrium adjustment”—the idea that courts have always tweaked Fourth Amendment rules to preserve a balance between law enforcement power and personal privacy, even as technology shifts the terrain. From Prohibition-era wiretaps to the modern smartphone, that balancing act has never stopped. Orin walks us through how this theory applies to search warrants for digital devices, plain view exceptions in the age of limitless data, and the surprisingly murky question of whether copying your files counts as a seizure. It's very persuasive, I say, if you ignore Congress's contribution to equilibrium. In some cases, the courts are simply discovering principles in the Fourth Amendment that Congress put in statute decades earlier. Worse, courts (and Orin) have too often privileged their idea of equilibrium over the equilibrium chosen by Congress, ignoring or implicitly declaring unconstitutional compromises between privacy and law enforcement that are every bit as defensible as the courts'. One example is preservation orders—those quiet government requests that tell internet providers to make a copy of your account just in case. Orin argues that's a Fourth Amendment search and needs a warrant, even if no one looks at the data yet. But preservation orders without a warrant are authorized by Congress; ignoring Congress's work should require more than a vague notion of equilibrium rebalancing, or so I argue. Orin is unpersuaded. We also revisit Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court decision on location tracking, and talk about what it does—and doesn't—mean for the third-party doctrine. Orin's take is refreshingly narrow: Carpenter didn't blow up the doctrine, but it did acknowledge that some records, even held by third parties, are just too revealing to ignore. I argue that Carpenter is the judiciary's Vietnam war – it has committed troops to an unwinnable effort to replace the third party rule with a doomed series of touchy-feely ad hoc rulings. That said, Orin's version of the decision, which deserves to be called the Kerr-penter doctrine, is more limited and more defensible than most of the legal (and judicial) interpretations over the last several years. Finally, we talk border searches, network surveillance, and whether the Supreme Court has any idea where to go next. (Spoiler: probably not.)
The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." But — what's unreasonable? That question has fueled a century's worth of court rulings that have dramatically expanded the power of individual police officers in the U.S. Today on the show, how an amendment that was supposed to limit government power has ended up enabling it. This episode originally published in 2024.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
From December 4, 2023: Is the Fourth Amendment doing any work anymore? In a forthcoming article entitled “Government Purchases of Private Data,” Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, details how, in recent years, federal and state agencies have begun to purchase location information and other consumer data, as government attorneys have mostly concluded that purchasing data is a valid way to bypass Fourth Amendment restrictions. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Matthew to discuss this article, where he attempts to bring this constitutional evasion to light. They talked about the two main arguments offered for why the purchase of private data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, his responses to these arguments, and the recommendations he makes to courts, legislators, and government agencies to address the Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns surrounding government purchases of private data.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
