this is a case where plainclothed police officers snuck into my client's house
through a window searched his house without a warrant or other legal
justification found nothing in left but they got caught on hidden surveillance cameras
long story short there was no justification for their actions no search warrant no exigent
circumstances and certainly no consent those are the only three justifications under the
Fourth Amendment as it turned out the only purported reason that they were there was to
serve as civil summons as the landlord had begun eviction proceedings due to late rent payments
that provided no justification to enter or search the home the matter hadn't even gone to court yet
there was no eviction order the officers were investigated and disciplined by their Department
the only excuse given was that they didn't read the paperwork and thought that there was an
eviction order in the paperwork that they had and they figured that since they're a drug task force
that they'd search for drugs while they were at it we filed the federal section 1983 suit
for Fourth Amendment violations and are currently set for trial early next year the last update was
about the video depositions in the case I took the video depositions of the officers from the video
they all pled the Fifth Amendment supposedly the FBI is investig hating them it's pretty clear now
after having exchanged Discovery and taken almost all the depositions that this is the story of a
drug task force unit designed to use so-called knock and talk investigations in lieu of the
more conventional and old-fashioned search warrant procedures the video depositions themselves were
pretty dramatic the lawyers for the officers filed a motion for a protective order with the
federal court asking the court to prohibit me from uploading the video deposition footage to YouTube
they claim that exposing this sworn testimony of these police officers to the public endangered
officer safety and Prejudice them in the eyes of potential future jurors well a few days ago the
Court ruled granting them a protective order during the pendency of this case then when
the case is over I have to then request the court to vacate that protective order but as the court
noted a few things could happen in the meantime that could moot the issues such as a settlement
agreement or the video depositions becoming public record which they ultimately will in the very near
future the court stated the court currently is not in a position to determine whether the protective
order should terminate upon adjudication of the case as that determination depends upon
factors not yet known the issue may become moot as it's possible that the parties will agree not
to publish the videotape depositions as part of a compromise in settlement the depositions may also
become part of the public record creating presumption of Public Access which would
significantly alter the Court's analysis of the protective order the court further held that the
protective order was not an unconstitutional prior restraint on Free Speech as I had argued the court
noted that quote the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a protective order supported by good
cause and limited to pre-trial civil Discovery that's not what they're asking for by the way
without restricting dissemination of information found in other sources does not offend the First
Amendment the court also denied the defendant's request for attorney's fees thankfully finding
that my were quote substantially Justified now as I warned them from the very beginning
trying to suppress this is only going to draw more attention to it even if I personally am restricted
from uploading the footage to my YouTube channel what about third parties restricting me from using
the footage is only going to cause third parties to want to obtain everything that becomes public
record and use it the cover-up as we know is always worse than the original crime the
cover-up itself becomes the story you know at the end of every deposition the other lawyer
asked the officers whether or not they consent to John Bryan using their likeness and voice in
YouTube videos of course they don't so here's what's also on the table how about puppet shows
maybe professional actors dramatic reenactments low budget High budget I don't know let me know
what you think ironically this could just be an even better option think about it would you rather
people see your actual sworn testimony or would you rather people see my dramatic reenactment
or someone else's dramatic reenactment with a puppet of your testimony or maybe even an
actor maybe a Reno 911 cast member maybe I need to start a GoFundMe and see what kind of budget
I can get going for this thing and by the way I've currently been waiting several days on
YouTube to review videos that I already created and this process is just getting worse and worse
meanwhile Facebook has been quite the opposite if you don't already follow me on Facebook it's at
John bryanlaw John H Brian attorney at law is the name of the page it's linked in the description
please please do I also started a rumble Channel which will mirror YouTube for now but I may start
uploading specific content to rumble and Facebook as YouTube gets more difficult to deal with as
always thanks for watching I'll post a copy of the court order discussed in this video at the
blog post Linked In the description please also keep the new subscriptions coming I have a lot of
good work coming up then I really want to share it with you I've also been posting early videos for
members to review while YouTube takes their time with them so consider becoming a channel member
getting access to those videos including ones that maybe end up getting restricted
or deleted in the end remember freedom is scary deal with it I'll see you next time