POPULARITY
Categories
83 episodes with Fourth Amendment
122 episodes with Fourth Amendment
53 episodes with Fourth Amendment
37 episodes with Fourth Amendment
16 episodes with Fourth Amendment
16 episodes with Fourth Amendment
24 episodes with Fourth Amendment
41 episodes with Fourth Amendment
10 episodes with Fourth Amendment
14 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
15 episodes with Fourth Amendment
14 episodes with Fourth Amendment
23 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
14 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
29 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
12 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
8 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
11 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
10 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
2 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
7 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
2 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
6 episodes with Fourth Amendment
17 episodes with Fourth Amendment
3 episodes with Fourth Amendment
4 episodes with Fourth Amendment
5 episodes with Fourth Amendment
Many people have come to accept pervasive surveillance as the price of modern life: that our phones, browsers, messages, purchases, and movements will inevitably be collected, analyzed, and sold to those with enough money or power.For many, there's a growing sense that true privacy is irrevocably lost, and resistance is largely futile.Naomi Brockwell disagrees.She is the president of the Ludlow Institute, and with her YouTube channel, she educates people about the many choices they can make to reclaim their privacy—without totally disconnecting from modern life.“I, as an individual, can actually make choices that reclaim basically all of my privacy in the digital age,” she says.She connects the dots between digital privacy and the survival of whistleblowers, investigative journalists, protest movements, and opposition parties—none of which can function without it.Her message is that some things are worth fighting for: “Because submission is its own kind of death.”Her institute recently helped draft a new bill that aims to restore Fourth Amendment protections in the digital era by requiring warrants for the government to access your data online.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
In a conversation that's equal parts humorous and thought-provoking, the speaker delves into the world of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and their implications on our civil liberties. With a dash of humor, the speaker shares a personal anecdote about a friend's wife who brought home a box of Craftsman screwdrivers, only to be met with a sarcastic reaction. But this lighthearted moment quickly gives way to a serious discussion about the potential dangers of ALPRs.The speaker explains how these cameras, made by the company Flock, can photograph every car that drives past them, recording a "vehicle fingerprint" that includes the plate, make, model, color, and even the number of people in the car. This data is then uploaded to a network in the cloud, where thousands of law enforcement agencies can access it without a warrant. The speaker shares a chilling example of a police officer who used Flock's cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend over 2,000 times, highlighting the potential for abuse.The conversation also touches on the story of a woman in Kentucky who was tracked by a police officer using Flock's cameras, and the speaker argues that this technology raises serious concerns about our civil liberties. The speaker notes that the Fourth Amendment was written to protect us from just this kind of surveillance, and that we should be cautious about handing over our data to the government without proper oversight.If you're concerned about the implications of ALPRs on our society, you won't want to miss this episode. The speaker shares a personal story about a recent protest in Colorado, where thousands of high school students walked out of class to march against ICE, and raises important questions about the role of schools in these events. Join us as we explore the complex issues surrounding ALPRs and their impact on our daily lives.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Have you noticed those small, sleek black cameras appearing on utility poles and highway overpasses in your neighborhood? They're not just for traffic—they're part of a massive, private AI surveillance network built by a multi-billion dollar company called Flock Safety.In this video, we dive deep into how this proprietary AI system captures "vehicle fingerprints"—logging your license plate, make, model, and even unique identifiers like bumper stickers. More importantly, we explore how this private database potentially bypasses the Fourth Amendment, allowing law enforcement and private entities to track your daily routines without a warrant.We'll cover:What Flock cameras actually are and how they work.The legal implications of private AI surveillance.The growing grassroots movement to map and avoid these cameras.How this system could be used for behavioral conditioning and self-censorship.Learn more about the movement to reclaim your privacy: [Link to DeFlock.me]Join the conversation: What do you think about the rise of private AI surveillance? Have you seen these cameras in your town? Let us know in the comments.00:00 - The Invisible Net: Identifying Flock Cameras01:17 - How the AI "Vehicle Fingerprint" Works02:08 - The Legal Loophole: Bypassing the 4th Amendment02:53 - Privacy Investigations and Backdoor Access03:32 - Real-World Misuse and Stalking Cases04:10 - System Glitches and False Alerts05:21 - The Resistance: Waking Up to the Grid05:38 - DeFlock: The Crowdsourced Resistance Map06:14 - Corporate Panic and the "Terrorist" Label06:48 - Behavioral Conditioning and the Future of Privacy#surveillance #privacy #ai #fourthamendment #TheSoulTrap #flocksafetySupport the show
Get the “Flock” out of here!With the recent spree of vandalism locally and nationwide that has affected FLOCK surveillance cameras, we delve inside the growing vigilante movement to knock out these Automated License Plate Readers.Tonight, on this explosive, investigative, informative brand-new episode of Light ‘Em Up — like an intense laser beam, we're focusing on Flock Automated License Plate Reading Cameras and this AI-driven technology. The industry, for short refers to them as ALPRs.It seems like Flock Automatic License Plate Reader Cams are everywhere, on every street and corner. Big brother is certainly watching you and there doesn't seem to be a damned thing you can do about it!Flock Safety's automated license plate-reading cameras, used by thousands of law enforcement agencies in the U.S., have drawn intense criticism from concerned citizens and civil liberties groups, among others.Are they an unlawful, unconstitutional invasion of your privacy?Can you have and expect any expectation of privacy while you are in public? The argument rages on.Flock Safety is a private company based in Atlanta, GA valued at $8bn that supplies the lion's share of the license plate-reading cameras used by law enforcement departments across the nation.Law enforcement agencies have embraced them, but police departments are not the only customers. College campuses and homeowner's associations have also put up the cameras.More municipalities, both large and small, are budgeting for them. More than 7,000 organizations in the United States have contracts with Flock Safety, according to the company.The proliferation of Flock cameras has divided the public and rattled civil liberties watchdogs.The ACLU argues that the extensive network:— constitutes mass surveillance,— raises privacy concerns regarding tracking daily habits,— and can be used to track people attending protests or religious institutions.How do you feel about your every move being watched and surveilled by the government?Does this fact stress you out or perhaps make you feel anxious?Or do these cameras provide you with a heightened sense of physical safety and security?— Do you think these cameras offer any significant crime reduction?— Do you feel unease from a loss of privacy?We want to know … you can email us at prizzo7778@gmail.comTell us exactly how you feel about the Automatic License Plate Reader Cameras taking your picture EVERY time you drive down the street:— Do you even notice?— Do you care?Some say the cameras are a valuable tool to help catch criminals and senior citizens when they wander away from their homes, while critics argue that the information they collect can be misused by the government or rogue law enforcement officers.Several law enforcement officers have been disciplined for misusing data from Flock's cameras, including an officer in Milwaukee who was criminally charged after using camera data to track someone he was dating and the person's ex.We'll examine what the Supreme Court has said about this.— Does the government throw a too large and too wide of a dragnet … considering EVERY person to be a suspect?That isn't how the U.S. Constitution works, and it doesn't permit that, either.All people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and an officer must possess a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a specific crime that has been committed to briefly stop or detain a person. That kind of stop is referred to as a Terry Stop.We'll examine exactly what Flock cameras are:We'll share with you why they've come under such public fire as they produce a treasure-trove of highly sophisticated surveillance records instantly. Sure, proponents say this helps prevent crime, opponents say the information can be dangerous in the wrong hands and are the tools of tyranny and control.That criticism has intensified as the Trump administration has carried out immigration crackdowns across the nation, fueling concerns about clients sharing license plate information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies.In Washington State, at least seven police departments and one sheriff's office had granted access to the U.S. Border Patrol to their license plate reader networks in 2025, according to an analysis by the University of Washington. An audit by the city of Columbus, Ohio, found that its Flock data had been searched more than 15,000 times for potential immigration-related purposes since 2024.Since the company's inception in 2017, many municipalities have added the popular technology, however as of late more communities have either deactivated the cameras or canceled their contracts with ALPR suppliers because of complaints about mass surveillance and what critics have called a lack of guardrails over who can access the information.This technology is testing the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, in ways the constitutional framers could never have anticipated.You can register for Flock Safety's SafeList here: How Flock's SafeList Removes Your Car From Camera SearchesFrequently Asked Questions | Flock SafetyListen to our first episode on this topic, here.We speak the truth, protect the vulnerable and always pursue justice.Tune in for all the explosive details and our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot!We want to hear from you!Support the show
The Peter Boyles Show August 29, 2026 HOUR 2: Peter Boyles digs into the Colorado governor’s race with longtime Republican strategist Dick Wadhams, focusing on Victor Marx, Greg Lopez and Phil Weiser—and the growing debate over whether Republicans should support Marx, vote for Lopez as a repudiation of the GOP nominee, or turn to a Libertarian candidate. The conversation then turns sharply to privacy and surveillance, with callers weighing in on Flock cameras, Halo cameras, automated license-plate readers, facial recognition, data collection, smartphones and health-tracking devices, the Fourth Amendment, the Patriot Act, Palantir and the idea that technology designed for security can also be used against innocent people.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Peter Boyles Show August 29, 2026 HOUR 4: Hour 4 continues the debate over Colorado’s governor’s race, with callers weighing Victor Marx, Greg Lopez and the Republican Party’s direction, while Peter Boyles questions whether Colorado conservatives are being forced into an impossible choice in November. The conversation then turns to privacy and government surveillance, with callers discussing the Fourth Amendment, Flock and other cameras, drones, digital tracking, medical records, cell phones, facial recognition and just how much the government and technology companies can know about ordinary Americans—including whether the idea of a truly private life is already gone.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A massive victory for privacy advocates in the Supreme Court hinged on what the justices say a user “reasonably expects” to be their own, personal data. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant, which collected identity and location data from mobile phone users, violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford University unpacks the decision in Chatrie v. United States and explores what it means for the future of the Fourth Amendment, privacy, and government surveillance in the digital age. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Orin S. Kerr, “The Fourth Amendment After Chatrie,” Stanford Law Working Paper Series (Aug 12, 2026) Orin S. Kerr, The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World (2025) The Fourth Amendment, National Constitution Center Chatrie v. United States (2026) Case v. Montana (2026) Carpenter v. United States (2018) Riley v. California (2014) United States v. Knotts (1983) United States v. Leon (1984) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Stay Connected and Learn More Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen. Questions or comments? Email podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Support our important work by making a donation today. Donate
Big Brother used to need binoculars. Now apparently he has AI. I joined Corey and Alan Hunsberger on Talk Truth to break down the growing surveillance infrastructure behind Flock cameras, AI-powered tracking, Big Tech algorithms, data collection and the wonderfully reassuring promise that it's all “for your safety.” We get into how technology built to catch criminals can become infrastructure for tracking ordinary Americans, why algorithmic control over information is its own form of manipulation, the dangers of giving centralized systems too much power, and why Christians should be especially skeptical when man starts trying to play God. Most importantly, we talk about what people can actually do at the local level to push back and defend privacy, constitutional rights and human freedom.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-jeff-dornik-show--4788100/support.Follow The Jeff Dornik Show on Apple Podcasts and leave a 5-star review. That's how we reach more people and bypass Big Tech suppression.Watch LIVE daily at 7pm ET on Rumble and subscribe so you never miss a show:https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornikBig Tech is silencing truth while harvesting your data to feed the machine. That's why I built Pickax, a free speech platform where creators own their content and your voice isn't controlled. Join now:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Today's guest is Benn Jordan. He is a science and technology expert whose YouTube investigations into Flock cameras and their security flaws have garnered millions of views. You can check out his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@UCshObcm-nLhbu8MY50EZ5Ng Change Agents is an IRONCLAD Original Chapters(00:00) – Cold Open (01:21) – Benn's Flock Camera Investigations (09:07) – Flock vs. the Fourth Amendment (12:06) – Flock's Business Model & First Contract (17:15) – The Danger of Unchecked Surveillance (20:06) – Can Civilians Actually Fight This? (27:42) – Crashing Flock's Private Convention (31:06) – Flock's Legal Threats vs. Researchers (39:37) – How the Cameras Actually Work (43:32) – Live Hacking Demo: Proving It's Not Encrypted (45:54) – The Dunwoody Scandal (48:40) – The Legal Case Against Flock (49:41) – Dark Web Data & the FTC Investigation (53:23) – Congress' Response (56:28) – The Threat to Gun Owners & Foreign Adversaries (59:29) – The Chinese Backdoor Discovery (1:02:59) – What People Can Actually Do (1:05:42) – Closing Message: Privacy as a Human Right Sponsors: Firecracker Farm Use code IRONCLAD to get 15% off your first order at https://firecracker.farm/ Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/change-agents-with-andy-stumpf/id1677415740 Subscribe on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3SKmtN55V2AGbzHDo34DHI?si=5aefbba9abc844ed Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The State opposed Bryan Kohberger's effort to suppress evidence connected to investigative genetic genealogy, arguing that the IGG process had functioned only as an investigative lead and had not produced the DNA evidence prosecutors ultimately intended to use against him at trial. Prosecutors maintained that the genealogy work pointed investigators toward Kohberger, but that law enforcement then independently collected trash from his family's Pennsylvania home and later obtained a direct buccal swab after his arrest. According to the State, those later samples established the evidentiary comparison to the male DNA recovered from the knife sheath. Because prosecutors were not planning to introduce the family-tree research, genealogy database information or the identities of genetic relatives as proof of guilt, they argued that Kohberger was trying to suppress an investigative technique rather than evidence that would actually be presented to the jury.The State also rejected the defense argument that Kohberger's constitutional rights had been violated by investigators searching genetic genealogy databases. Prosecutors argued that Kohberger had no reasonable expectation of privacy in DNA information voluntarily uploaded by distant relatives to third-party genealogy services and therefore lacked standing to challenge those searches on their behalf. They further maintained that even if the court found some problem with the IGG investigation, suppression still would not automatically follow because investigators had developed additional evidence linking Kohberger to the crime and ultimately obtained his own DNA through lawful means. The prosecution's position was essentially that IGG helped generate a name, not courtroom evidence, and that the defense was attempting to transform a genealogical lead into a Fourth Amendment violation capable of excluding the later DNA comparison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different perspectives on Flock cameras and automated license plate readers. First on the show is Rafael Mangual, the Nick Ohnell Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a member of the Council on Criminal Justice. Later, we hear from Robert Frommer, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and Director of the Institute for Justice's Project on the Fourth Amendment. You can find Rafael on X at @Rafa_Mangual and Robert at @Robert_Frommer. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Hawk walks through Adam Serwer's Atlantic piece, The See No Evil Supreme Court, and the framework Serwer names the neo Korematsu doctrine: if any non racial explanation for a policy can be constructed, however hypothetical, the racial animus behind it stops mattering legally. Serwer traces it from Trump v. Hawaii through Louisiana v. Callais and the TPS ruling, and contrasts it with Masterpiece Cakeshop, where hostile statements by officials counted for everything. Sotomayor's September dissent is the payoff, and Hawk reads from it. There is also footage circulating of agents in the back of a truck identifying people in traffic by appearance, using language that makes the criteria explicit. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
Bryan Kohberger's defense had been positioned to mount a constitutional challenge to the investigative genetic genealogy, or IGG, techniques authorities used after DNA was recovered from the knife sheath found beneath Madison Mogen's body. Investigators had developed a male DNA profile from the sheath and used genetic genealogy to search for relatives of the unknown contributor, eventually building a family tree that helped point investigators toward Kohberger. The process raised questions among legal scholars about whether law enforcement's use of genetic information submitted by people to genealogy databases could implicate Fourth Amendment privacy protections, particularly when relatives of a suspect had never consented to having their genetic information used in a criminal investigation. Kohberger's attorneys had sought access to the underlying IGG materials, arguing that they needed to examine exactly how investigators conducted the search and whether constitutional or procedural violations occurred along the way.The potential challenge represented largely unsettled legal territory because courts had not yet established broad constitutional protections against investigative genetic genealogy, and prosecutors maintained that the genealogy work had simply provided an investigative lead rather than evidence they intended to present directly against Kohberger at trial. Legal experts explained that this distinction could make suppression difficult because investigators later obtained Kohberger's DNA through traditional means and directly compared it with the sheath profile. Still, the defense had reason to scrutinize whether the genealogy search violated privacy expectations, exceeded database restrictions or improperly influenced subsequent investigative steps. The dispute therefore had implications extending well beyond Kohberger's case, as a successful constitutional challenge could have affected how police departments across the country used rapidly expanding consumer DNA databases to identify suspects in otherwise difficult cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) joins us as the Senate heads toward its September 15 CLARITY vote. He wrote the Keep Your Coins Act and the Token Taxonomy Act, voted no on GENIUS, and watched leadership kill his own Fourth Amendment amendment on FISA 702. We get into the SEC's new crypto rule and its 10% retail cap, why self-custody has never gotten a standalone floor vote, the CBDC ban standoff, and whether Trump's debanking order eventually reaches your wallet.~This episode is sponsored by Tangem~Tangem ➜ https://bit.ly/TangemPBNUse Code: "PBN" for Additional Discounts!Guest: Representative Warren Davidson (R)X Account: https://x.com/rep_davidson?s=2100:00 intro00:10 Sponsor: Tangem00:45 Days Since House Passed CLARITY01:00 Warren guaranteed to win?01:15 Warren vs Warren02:00 CLARITY Odds03:40 Will you vote to pass CLARITY?05:00 SEC Rule: No cap vs $75M fund07:00 Midterm odds: Crypto regulation at risk?09:15 Keep Your Coins Act sidelined 10:30 Who's stopping your bill?11:50 Sec 702: Jim Jordan betrayal14:45 Flock cameras vs CBDCs15:15 Immigrant debanking eventually reach Americans self-custody?17:40 Bank Secrecy Act expanded or diminished under Trump?19:10 CLARITY probability still hinging on ethics?20:40 Republicans vs Stablecoins ban22:50 Stablecoin yields misrepresented?24:00 Privacy vs young voters#Crypto #Bitcoin #Privacy~Crypto CLARITY vs Privacy
In a recent court ruling, the state of Maryland made a significant shift in the way law enforcement interacts with citizens who are carrying firearms. The case, Stephen Hicks versus the State, has far-reaching implications for the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. This episode delves into the details of the ruling and its potential impact on gun owners and law enforcement.The speaker discusses the case of a man who was stopped by police for carrying a gun, despite having a permit. The court ultimately ruled that the police had no right to stop him solely based on the sight of the gun, as this is not a valid reason for a search. This decision is a major victory for gun rights advocates, who argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms.The speaker also explores the concept of "printing," or the outline of a gun visible under clothing, and whether this constitutes brandishing. They discuss the differences between concealment and brandishing, and how the law views these terms. The speaker also touches on the topic of a proposed merger between Warner Brothers and Discovery, and how the Justice Department's approval was blocked by a group of state attorneys general.If you're interested in learning more about this case and its implications for gun owners and law enforcement, tune in to this episode to hear the speaker's in-depth analysis and discussion.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Safety versus mass surveillance. 7,000 police agencies. 120,000 cameras. 20 billion license plates scanned every month — no warrant needed. Judge Andrew Napolitano joins Kelly Sadler on Politically Unstable to ask whether Flock cameras have quietly rewritten the Fourth Amendment.
Flock cameras are rapidly expanding across America, giving law enforcement access to a powerful network of automated license plate readers capable of identifying vehicles and helping investigators track suspects and solve crimes. But as the technology expands, so does a much bigger question: How much surveillance are Americans willing to accept in the name of public safety? In this episode of The Finest Unfiltered, we break down the growing debate surrounding Flock Safety cameras, automated license plate readers (ALPRs), police surveillance, privacy rights, and the Fourth Amendment. Are Flock cameras simply another valuable tool that helps police locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and solve violent crimes? Or are we quietly building a massive surveillance network capable of tracking the movements of ordinary Americans who have committed no crime? We discuss: • How Flock cameras and ALPR technology work • How law enforcement uses the data during investigations • The public-safety argument for expanding camera networks • Privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns • Who should have access to the information • How long location data should be retained • The difference between legitimate investigations and mass surveillance • Whether technology is moving faster than the laws designed to protect our privacy • Where America should draw the line between FREEDOM and SAFETY Technology has changed policing forever. The question is whether the safeguards protecting Americans from government surveillance can keep up. What do you think? Would you support Flock cameras in your community if they helped police solve serious crimes, or does the potential for widespread surveillance go too far? ️ THE FINEST UNFILTERED — New York's Finest: Retired & Unfiltered SPONSORED BY KALSHI Download the Kalshi app and use code FINEST to get $10 when you trade $10. Kalshi: https://kalshi.com/r/FINEST #FlockSafety #FlockCameras #ALPR #LicensePlateReaders #PoliceSurveillance #Privacy #FourthAmendment #CivilLiberties #LawEnforcement #Policing #PublicSafety #NYPD #TheFinestUnfiltered Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" gives a first look at the stories you need to know to start your day, including newly released FBI files revealing that former Democratic congressman Eric Swalwell admitted to repeated physical relations with suspected Chinese operative Christine "Fang Fang" Fang, who also helped organize campaign fundraisers as the two joked about her possible connection to China's Ministry of State Security; President Donald Trump honoring 16-year-old lifeguard Ryder Williams in the Oval Office after his dramatic rescue of 10-year-old Nathaniel Rai from a powerful rip current in Santa Cruz; and communities across the country canceling contracts for Flock license-plate surveillance cameras amid allegations of police misuse, privacy abuses, and Fourth Amendment violations; and much more. #rubinreport #ericwalwell #fangfang #RyderWilliams #heroic #lifeguard #flockcameras #daverubin
Authorities built part of the case against Bryan Kohberger through a combination of cell-site location information, surveillance footage, and DNA evidence, and the legal argument presented at the time was that investigators had obtained that evidence without violating the Fourth Amendment. Police had Kohberger's phone number from an earlier traffic stop and later obtained warrants for his historical cellular records. The initial warrant covered a limited period surrounding the murders, and investigators subsequently obtained authorization for a much broader range of records after reviewing the first set of data. Those records indicated that Kohberger's phone had connected to towers serving the area around the King Road residence on multiple occasions before the killings. On the night of the murders, the phone appeared to move away from Pullman before it stopped communicating with the cellular network for roughly two hours and then reappeared south of Moscow. Investigators argued that the phone data, when compared with surveillance footage of a white Hyundai Elantra traveling through the region, helped establish a timeline of Kohberger's alleged movements. Because investigators had obtained search warrants for the historical location information, the process was described as consistent with the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision, which imposed greater Fourth Amendment protections on long-term cell-site location records.The DNA portion of the investigation was also described as constitutionally permissible. Investigators had recovered male DNA from the button snap of the knife sheath found beside one of the victims and later used genetic genealogy techniques to help narrow their search. In December 2022, Pennsylvania authorities collected garbage that had been placed outside the Kohberger family residence and compared DNA recovered from that trash with the sheath profile. Testing indicated that the DNA from the garbage was overwhelmingly consistent with having come from the biological father of the man whose DNA had been found on the sheath, strengthening investigators' focus on Kohberger. The Fourth Amendment argument rested heavily on the Supreme Court's California v. Greenwood decision, which had established that police generally did not need a warrant to search garbage left outside a residence for collection because a person no longer retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Taken together, the phone records, vehicle surveillance and DNA work were presented as evidence obtained through established constitutional procedures rather than unlawful searches, with the resulting information helping investigators establish probable cause for Kohberger's arrest.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
A Walmart ban sounds simple until you watch it collide with the Fourth Amendment on a public roadway. We dig into the Damon Darling traffic stop and the bigger legal question underneath it: when a private business wants you gone, who has to tell you, when does it become criminal trespass, and what can police actually do without turning a civil notice into an unlawful seizure?We walk through the mechanics of a “criminal trespass warning” and why the label confuses everyone. If you're leaving, you're leaving and that matters. We also talk about the common mistake cops make when they demand ID during a civil trespass situation, and why shaky procedure can turn into dismissed cases, public outrage, and avoidable lawsuits. Along the way we address the “right to travel” arguments that keep popping up in traffic stop videos and why they don't survive court.Then we pivot into accountability and modern policing tools: taser gloves and what “reasonable force” should look like, why officers should face harsher punishment when they abuse state-granted power, and the training gap that leaves too many cops rusty on constitutional law. We finish with a deep dive into license plate readers, Flock Safety, real-time crime centers, auditing, retention limits, and the one thing that prevents wrongful stops: verification, not vibes.If you care about constitutional rights, police accountability, and how tech changes street-level policing, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review with the one moment you agreed or disagreed with us the most.send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.comSupport the showPlease see our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TwoCopsOneDonut Join our Discord!! https://discord.gg/BdjeTEAc *Send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com
Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback joins The Connect to explain why he believes it's time for a political revolution at the state level—and why Florida must stand up to Washington, Wall Street, foreign influence, and the growing surveillance state. In this wide-ranging conversation, Fishback lays out his plan to eliminate Flock license-plate cameras, oppose Palantir-style mass surveillance, protect First and Fourth Amendment rights, and repeal Florida laws he believes restrict criticism of foreign governments. He also breaks down his opposition to the H-1B visa system, arguing that major corporations are replacing qualified American workers with cheaper foreign labor. Fishback explains how he would penalize companies that refuse to hire qualified Florida residents, prevent private-equity firms and foreign investors from buying up single-family homes, and stop taxpayer-subsidized AI data centers from spreading across the state. The discussion also covers Florida public schools, student accountability, crime and “teen takeovers,” restoring rights to former nonviolent offenders, gun rights, undeclared foreign wars, the National Guard, AIPAC influence, state sovereignty, and his legal battle to remain on the ballot. Can Florida become a model for a new American liberty movement—or is the political machine too powerful to defeat? Go Support James! Website: https://www.votemyflorida.org/ Join The Patreon For Bonus Content! https://www.patreon.com/theconnectshow 00:00 Introduction: The Fight for Freedom 00:42 Why I Support James Fishback 01:30 Fishback's America First Platform 02:44 A Call to Action for Floridians 03:01 The National Significance of Florida's Fight 04:41 A New Experiment in Liberty 06:50 The Easiest Problem: Banning Flock Cameras 08:20 The Fourth Amendment and Mass Surveillance 10:50 The Existential Battle for Privacy 12:10 Repealing Florida's Hate Speech Law 14:40 The Real Test of the First Amendment 15:56 Taking on the Opposition: Byron Donalds 17:00 The Education Crisis in Florida 20:00 Accountability in the Classroom 22:55 The H-1B Visa Scam 26:50 Protecting American Jobs 29:00 Resistance at the State Level 32:10 Banning Private Equity from Buying Homes 34:00 The Unfair Advantage of Private Equity 36:45 Foreign Buyers and the Housing Crisis 38:00 Capitalism vs. America 39:12 The Threat of Data Centers 42:40 The Data Center Invasion in Florida 44:30 Defending State Sovereignty 47:00 Consistency and Truth in Politics 48:00 Existential Issues vs. Cultural Differences 50:00 The Case Against Zero Crime 53:00 Addressing Teen Takeovers and Riots 57:40 The El Salvador Model: Tough on Crime 58:40 Restoring Rights for Former Felons 01:01:00 The Lawfare Battle and Victory 01:03:00 The Un-American Nature of Merging Militaries 01:04:40 The True America First Agenda 01:06:00 Byron Donalds: A Puppet of Foreign Interests 01:08:00 America Comes First 01:10:00 Christian Values and Governance 01:12:00 Teaching Kids What It Means to Be American 01:14:00 Mass Surveillance vs. Freedom 01:18:00 The Unanimous Opposition to Data Centers 01:20:00 The Momentum of the Fishback Campaign 01:22:00 Final Call to Action: Vote for James Fishback Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Austin Petersen confronts his own 2016 presidential-debate positions on Donald Trump, immigration, government, education, and foreign policy—and explains what changed. Judge Andrew Napolitano then breaks down how Flock license-plate cameras enable warrantless mass surveillance and why the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent it. Erika Donalds closes the edition with a practical argument for rebuilding patriotism, civic education, parental rights, and school choice. This commute-friendly Wake Up America audio edition removes livestream setup, commercials, shop pitches, visual-only material, and repeated filler. Listen now and tap Follow on Apple Podcasts or Spotify so tomorrow's edition is waiting in your feed. Watch the complete video.
How much surveillance is too much? On The Dr. Sky Experience on 77 WABC, Jeff Dornik dives into the growing use of Flock cameras, the blurry line between public safety and government surveillance, and what happens when technology gives government the ability to track ordinary Americans everywhere they go. Jeff also shares the story behind his media career and Pickax, while bringing the conversation back to a bigger question: are we willing to surrender freedom and privacy simply because someone promises us safety? Apparently, Big Brother finally discovered license-plate readers.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-jeff-dornik-show--4788100/support.Follow The Jeff Dornik Show on Apple Podcasts and leave a 5-star review. That's how we reach more people and bypass Big Tech suppression.Watch LIVE daily at 7pm ET on Rumble and subscribe so you never miss a show:https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornikBig Tech is silencing truth while harvesting your data to feed the machine. That's why I built Pickax, a free speech platform where creators own their content and your voice isn't controlled. Join now:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Don't Imbibe the Kool-Aid with Pastor David Whitney – Some would claim, "So what? If you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?" Is this how our Founders thought about the God-given rights which they sought to protect with the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution? Tune into this lively discussion between Pastor Whitney and Dr. Brian Shelly...
Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Issues Two New Executive Orders About Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism (1:28) What We Know About the Claims of Low Stockpiles of Munitions (~18:12) The Controversy Behind Flock Cameras; How Do They Square Up With the Fourth Amendment? (~28:24) Quick Hitters (~47:01) Critical Thinking Segment (~51:10) Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here. Thanks to Ground News for sponsoring the show! Only by using my link, you can get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan! Go to groundnews.com/up. Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Flock cameras are being sold as the next great tool for public safety, but we're quietly building the technological infrastructure for a surveillance state. I joined Jeff Crouere on Ringside Politics to break down how AI-powered camera networks can track vehicles across communities, why government access to that data should concern anyone who values privacy and constitutional rights, and how quickly technology built to catch criminals can become technology used to monitor ordinary Americans. We've already watched government agencies abuse surveillance powers once they were handed the tools. Giving politicians an AI-powered map of where everyone goes and hoping future administrations behave themselves is not exactly a brilliant constitutional safeguard.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-jeff-dornik-show--4788100/support.Follow The Jeff Dornik Show on Apple Podcasts and leave a 5-star review. That's how we reach more people and bypass Big Tech suppression.Watch LIVE daily at 7pm ET on Rumble and subscribe so you never miss a show:https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornikBig Tech is silencing truth while harvesting your data to feed the machine. That's why I built Pickax, a free speech platform where creators own their content and your voice isn't controlled. Join now:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
A rookie cop makes one stupid decision off duty and it follows him for years. Then he becomes the kind of voice the internet rarely expects: blunt about police mistakes, serious about constitutional rights, and willing to say “cops need to do better” without turning it into cop-bashing content. Retired New Haven, Connecticut officer Jason Bandy joins us to talk about what actually changes behavior in law enforcement and what just creates more heat than light.We get specific about the legal stuff people argue over daily: Fourth Amendment basics, when police can demand ID, why “failure to ID” gets abused, and why “treason” isn't the right label for rights violations when there are already real civil and criminal remedies. We also dig into the parts of policing the public rarely sees, like how weak supervision lets bad reports and bad probable cause survive long enough to embarrass everyone in court, and how promotions can reward test-taking instead of street-level competence and judgment.Then we step into the modern chaos where policing meets social media: First Amendment audits that expose training gaps, rage-bait clips that train viewers to escalate, TikTok cop clout, and viral videos that spark big legal questions fast. We react to a Tesla driver blaming autopilot for speeding, a security guard claiming “lawful orders” without clear authority, and an arrest over a “dangerous games” law where an officer tries to take someone's camera as “evidence.” Jay also shares his book, Citizens Law, built to explain American law and police encounters in plain English for civilians and cops alike.Subscribe for more real talk, share this with someone who argues about stops online, and leave a review with the biggest myth you want us to break down next.send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.comSupport the showPlease see our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TwoCopsOneDonut Join our Discord!! https://discord.gg/BdjeTEAc *Send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com
In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
Cancel Thanksgiving... then call it your favorite holiday. Dumb Bleep of the Week is finally back, and government has been busy. NEW YOUTUBE LINK: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCRhGmSkyii4Hd_wF-TPxgg Nate and Charlie break down a Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate's Thanksgiving backtrack, Mamdani's proposed city-run grocery stores, New York's attempt to mandate self-checkout discounts, and the viral argument over whether a burrito should cost $20. Then there's Dan Crenshaw telling people to stop whining about prices while making a free-market argument, Elizabeth Warren blaming private equity for soaring firetruck costs, and pro-China posts crediting communism for lifting millions out of poverty. The episode finishes with an Instagram algorithm allegedly serving a Michigan Senate candidate OnlyFans models, a proposal to give young voters proxy votes for children, and the growing fight over Flock license plate cameras and Fourth Amendment concerns. If government groceries, price controls, inflation, communism, surveillance, and political hypocrisy sound like a good Friday, you're in the right place. Subscribe or follow Good Morning Liberty, like the show, leave a comment, share it with a friend, and leave us a rating or review on your podcast app. Chapters 00:00 Dumb Bleep of the Week Returns 09:00 Cancel Thanksgiving... Then Call It Your Favorite Holiday 19:45 Mamdani's Government Grocery Stores 27:00 The $20 Burrito Affordability Fight 34:15 Dan Crenshaw Says "Stop Whining" 38:45 New York's 10% Self-Checkout Discount 41:45 Elizabeth Warren and $2.5 Million Firetrucks 51:15 Communist China and the Market Incentive Problem 59:45 "Only Abdul" Blames the Instagram Algorithm 01:04:45 Proxy Votes for America's Children 01:07:30 Flock Cameras and Mass Surveillance 01:13:30 The Dumb Bleep Vote 01:16:45 Thanksgiving Hong Wins Dumb Bleep of the Week Links Join GML: joingml.com All GML Links: gml.bio.link Watch All Episodes: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA Watch Host Favorites: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2 Join the Fed Haters Club: https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/fedhatersclub Martens Minute: https://martensminute.podbean.com/
Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (8/6/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v7bn8is","div":"rumble_v7bn8is"}); Source Links (In Chronological Order): (24) MAGADevilDog on X: "They don't know wtf they're doing https://t.co/2mSGUJhsmt" / X (24) Drop Site on X: "President Donald Trump says "to the victor belong the spoils" to justify the United States' seizure and control of Venezuelan oil. He boasted that the initial conflict lasted only 48 minutes and that the U.S. has already recouped its wartime expenses "many, many, many times" https://t.co/G1xwXBac5Y" / X New Tab The Last American Vagabond As Israel Further Occupies Syria, Western-Backed ISIS Patch-Wearing Terrorists Begin Executions New Tab (24) Thomas Massie on X: "Trump expands his base by welcoming Epstein's lawyer Alan Dershowitz into MAGA. This should work out great for the midterms. https://t.co/6cG4u4mTK2" / X (24) Luke Rudkowski on X: "What do you think about Tucker Carlson's 10-point plan? https://t.co/poFrEK2JSi" / X (15) The Last American Vagabond on X: "@ImBreckWorsham Consider the possibility that he is playing you just as Trump did. I truly hope he's genuine, but at least consider that he is only promising what we want to hear in order to gain support for the next political team that doesn't care about American interests. #TwoPartyIllusion" / X (15) Mario Nawfal on X: "
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
It's Public Safety Thursday, and Captain Warren Gosnell of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office is back in the studio to untangle one of the most misunderstood pieces of back-to-school season: school zone speed cameras. With students returning to class next week, Gosnell walks Janet through exactly how the lidar-based camera systems work, why they're not the same as license plate reader (LPR) technology, and what really happens — step by step, human review included — before anyone gets a $100 civil penalty in the mail. From there, the conversation widens into a candid discussion of Flock-style LPR cameras, Fourth Amendment expectations of privacy, and the checks Gosnell would like to see on who can access tracking data and why. It's a mix of hard information and easy banter — plus a detour through Ireland trips, 114-degree school buses, and the golden age of calling the radio station to ask if school's cancelled. Tune in for the facts before the flashing lights start again next week. THE VALLEY TODAY with Janet Michael — A decade of conversations. New podcast episodes drop weekdays at 11 AM. Catch the show on The River 95.3 and Fox Sports 1450 AM weekdays just after noon. Subscribe and listen at thevalleytodaypodcast.com — available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. If you enjoy the show, please take a moment to leave a rating or review — it helps more listeners find us. Connect with us: Facebook — facebook.com/ValleyTodayFanPage Instagram — instagram.com/thevalleytoday
Former state solicitors general Michael Mongan and Kevin Gallagher discuss the evolving role of state solicitors general and how states work together to shape legal battles before the Supreme Court. --- When states go to court, the battles are not always divided along party lines. State solicitors general often work across state lines to defend shared interests, coordinate legal strategy, and help shape cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In this episode, former California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, JD '06 (BA '01), and former Virginia Solicitor General Kevin Gallagher, now partners at WilmerHale, join podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the role of state solicitors general has evolved. They discuss multistate litigation, bipartisan coalitions, and how states can work together when their legal interests align. Mongan explains that bipartisan cooperation often happens when “they share sovereign interests as states and those interests are genuinely threatened.” Michael Mongan >>> WilmerHale Page Kevin Gallagher >>> WilmerHale Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00 Introduction 03:03 What does a State Solicitor General actually do? 04:24 Independence from the Governor 06:10 Who speaks for the state? 09:22 How Virginia united every state 12:44 Where red and blue states actually agree 15:12 The mechanics of building a multistate coalition 17:06 Avoiding duplicate briefs: who writes first? 19:53 From public service to a state AG private practice 20:55 Why firms are racing to build state AG expertise 24:57 Favorite cases 28:44 Closing Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
OA1284 - Can a modern court implement modern solutions? It really depends on your perspective. Despite some baffling misconceptions about how… anything works, the Justices seem to be doing a pretty good job of ultimately deciding that yes, police do in fact need a warrant to deeply invade your digital privacy. While Kavanaugh appears to have the entire concept of data storage and search queries upside down and backwards, Gorsuch asks complex questions about metadata versus true content, how data is stored in individual accounts, and what other types of data would be exposed if police were allowed to search your location information without a warrant… and yet they both ultimately vote to protect your privacy. It's a weird world out there folks. Cases discussed: United States v. Jones Carpenter v. United States Chatrie v. United States Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
We're back — maybe getting a little too scheduled — with one opinion on the docket: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, where the Court held that states may limit girls' and women's sports teams to biological sex without violation Equal Protection or Title IX. First, though, Will collects on a two-year-old prediction when the Court grants Jouppi v. Alaska, an Institute for Justice case about a five-figure airplane forfeited over a six-pack of beer. On the main event, we work through how the opinions are written (no pronouns, no "Lindsay"), what the litigants' Title IX concession did to the case, and whether there is any such thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge. Will makes a big-swing prediction about transgender status and heightened scrutiny, and we ask whether the Court's reasoning can be squared with VMI and the anti-stereotyping cases. Along the way: fencepost problems, Magneto's powers, Magic: The Gathering's crossover-IP wars, scrawny men, and Justice Kavanaugh's ode to the championship trophy.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: continuing the roll, "starting to get a little scheduled," and record-setting season ambitions[00:02:05] Summer interim-docket check-in: a new SG filing on mail-in voting; still no rehearing petition in the birthright-citizenship case[00:03:23] Filing-day counting and the classic fencepost problem[00:04:50] Will doesn't condone violence, Dan; UFC, violent video games, and Dungeons & Dragons[00:07:46] The prediction workflow pays off: Will called the IJ excessive-fines cert push back in May 2024 (Culley)[00:08:05] Cert granted in Jouppi v. Alaska: a 5-figure aircraft forfeited over a 6-pack of beer[00:09:58] Scorecard methodology: easy predictions, Magneto clauses, and a slugging-percentage proposal[00:12:51] Dan's good news: Constitutional Rights in General Private Law, accepted at Harvard Law Review[00:13:32] The main event: West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox — states can keep transgender athletes off girls' and women's teams[00:15:25] How the opinions are written: no pronouns, and the majority never says "Lindsay"[00:18:44] The Thomas concurrence: suspect class, "biological men and boys who identify as girls," and the Josef Pieper abuse-of-language quote[00:21:49] Title IX: the statutory text, the litigants' concession, and what the dissents are trying to preserve[00:29:39] The Equal Protection Clause: Skrmetti, two kinds of anti-trans laws, and Will's big-swing prediction on heightened scrutiny[00:35:29] VMI's inherent differences, bathrooms, and the anti-stereotyping mainstays (Craig v. Boren)[00:43:33] Is there such a thing as an as-applied equal protection challenge? Footnotes 7 and 9, scrawny men, and Nguyen[00:52:35] The Ninth Circuit's dropped thread: Idaho's invasive verification testing and the cis-woman plaintiff[00:54:41] Justice Kavanaugh, the sports justice: the championship-trophy passage and Flood v. Kuhn lore[00:56:52] The flip side: does Title IX sometimes require excluding transgender athletes? Dueling predictions[01:00:30] Why this isn't Bostock: Gorsuch, formalism, and a contested Indian-law analogy[01:02:49] Sign-off — and a preemptive accusation that Will will game the scorecard by refusing to recordRelevant linksCasesWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionJouppi v. Alaska — Institute for Justice case pageCulley v. MarshallUnited States v. SkrmettiUnited States v. Virginia (VMI)Nguyen v. INSFlood v. KuhnCommentary & articlesD'Onfro & Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law" — the Yale Law Journal predecessor to the new Harvard Law Review piece announced on the showOtherDivided Argument, "Originalism Hulk" — the back-catalogue episode whose new custom cover art comes up in the Marvel tangent
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl
176 Open Fields Doctrine - With Chief Travis McLain This week on Warden's Watch, Wayne sits down with Missouri Department of Conservation Chief of Protection Travis McLain to tackle one of the most misunderstood topics in conservation law: the Open Fields Doctrine. As both a conservation officer and attorney, Travis breaks down where the doctrine came from, what it actually means, and why protecting wildlife resources requires a balance between private property rights and public trust responsibilities. Our Sponsors: Thin Green Line Podcast Don Noyes Chevrolet North American Game Warden Museum Hunt Regs WiseEye SecureIt Gun Storage XS Sights “A Cowboy in the Woods” Book Iron Skillet Seasonings Maine Operation Game Thief New Hampshire Operation Game Thief Conservation Officers of Pennsylvania North East Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs Association International Wildlife Crimestoppers North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association Here's what we discuss: Why the Open Fields Doctrine continues to generate confusion Common myths about game warden authority How conservation officers operate under the same constitutional protections and limitations as other law enforcement officers The origins of the Open Fields Doctrine and Hester v. United States What the Fourth Amendment protects and what it doesn't Why open fields are different from homes, curtilage, papers, and personal effects "The Constitution really does apply to conservation officers, just like other police officers." Why there isn't a game warden behind every tree How conservation officers prioritize calls, complaints, and active hunting and fishing activity Respecting private landowners while protecting public wildlife resources The connection between the Open Fields Doctrine and the Public Trust Doctrine How wildlife belongs to all citizens, not individual landowners The history of wildlife management in North America Robin Hood, the King's deer, and the roots of wildlife law Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is unique The role of science and public input in setting regulations Wildlife management as a balance of biological and social factors Missouri's recovery from just 2,000 deer to around a million! "What got us there when they start thinking about totally upsetting the apple cart or changing the system." How conservation law enforcement supports long-term wildlife sustainability The importance of relationships between agencies, landowners, and sportsmen Why 93% of Missouri being privately owned creates unique challenges What could happen if conservation officers couldn't investigate wildlife violations on private land The role regulations play in protecting future generations of wildlife Why enforcement is about protecting resources, not writing tickets Conservation officers as educators and community partners How officers are trained to respect private property rights Social media misconceptions about conservation law enforcement Why many large landowners welcome conservation officers onto their properties Protecting hunting opportunities for everyone How officers provide valuable field information back to wildlife biologists Baiting, disease transmission, and fair chase concerns "Rules without enforcement are just suggestions." The Boone and Crockett Club's Poach and Pay study Why the biggest deterrent to poaching is the presence of a capable guardian How major wildlife cases often begin with small observations in the field The difference between making cases and protecting resources "It's not about the case. It's about stopping the damage that's being done to the public trust resource." Why successful conservation means more compliant hunters and anglers, not more citations Protecting wildlife regardless of land ownership, wealth, or status Challenges faced by public land hunters Why wildlife moves freely across property boundaries The importance of fair and consistent enforcement Looking beyond today and managing resources for future generations "If we all work together and respect each other, we can continue to keep going into the future for everybody." Final thoughts on balancing private property rights and public wildlife resources Debunking the myth of "special powers" held by game wardens Credits Hosts: Wayne Saunders and John Nores Producer: Jay Ammann Warden's Watch logo & Design: Ashley Hannett Research / Content Coordinator: Stacey DesRoches Subscribe: Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Google Waypoint Stitcher TuneIn Megaphone Find More Here: Website Warden's Watch / TGL Store Facebook Facebook Fan Page Instagram Threads YouTube RSS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
