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