- Joined
- Sep 13, 2020
The cop watching a reupload of the stream won't matter for the warrant, but the state hasn't subpoenaed Google for an actual copy (the discovery they turned over was the reupload). This is retarded because at trial it would be difficult/impossible to authenticate some random reupload. The state needs someone to testify that it's a true and accurate representation of the original or that it was recorded/stored by some regular procedure. You subpoena a copy from Google for the latter method.
Probable cause was established almost entirely through Aaron's statements and Nick's streams.
The affidavit established Aaron having a close relationship with Nick, including streaming from his house. It contains Aaron's allegations that Nick was on drugs during the cokestream and that he and his kids needed help, which was the day before the warrant issued.
The cop watched the cokestream and saw Nick all fucked up, including returning from a bathroom break all geeked out with white powder on his nose.
How so?The probable cause 1. Did not rely on Aaron Imholte whatsoever so I am unsure why he is cited at all in this document. The youtube video was also a minor part of the probable cause
Probable cause was established almost entirely through Aaron's statements and Nick's streams.
The affidavit established Aaron having a close relationship with Nick, including streaming from his house. It contains Aaron's allegations that Nick was on drugs during the cokestream and that he and his kids needed help, which was the day before the warrant issued.
The cop watched the cokestream and saw Nick all fucked up, including returning from a bathroom break all geeked out with white powder on his nose.



