4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

[Sister Golden Hair]

The Door Dash was also for a time period, not a single delivery:

all information in your possession or control related to sales, deliveries, purchases, and/or transactions made to 1122 King Road, Moscow, Idaho 83 843 for time period ofJanuary 1, 2022 to present, to include:

date and time of sales; date and time of deliveries; purchases and/or transactions; name and identification of the driver; full description ofthe vehicles used; any and all communications between drivers and the purchasers

I also notice that some for ATT include that confidential source statement?

MOO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/030723%20Order%20to%20Seal%20%20Redact%20-%20DoorDash%20Inc.pdf

edit spelling

ikr?! what the heck? Why would they need all the info about Door Dash? Did BK ever pose as a Door Dash guy or something and deliver food not ordered or was DD how he found them? This doesn't make sense.

the confidential source was in quite a few, too.

 

[Nila Aella]

This is an interesting one. Warrant was obtained and served on 28th November, so just prior to BK being identified. I'd say LE were doing their due diligence, tracking down as many purchasers of the suspected type of knife as possible.No specific dates of purchase for each buyer, but I imagine LE would have checked up on them, especially the Idaho buyer. MOO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/022823%20Order%20to%20Seal%20and%20Redact%20-%20Ebay%201.pdf

And the two WA sales too.
MOO

 

[jepop]

The Door Dash was also for a time period, not a single delivery:

all information in your possession or control related to sales, deliveries, purchases, and/or transactions made to 1122 King Road, Moscow, Idaho 83 843 for time period ofJanuary 1, 2022 to present, to include:

date and time of sales; date and time of deliveries; purchases and/or transactions; name and identification of the driver; full description ofthe vehicles used; any and all communications between drivers and the purchasers

I also notice that some for ATT include that confidential source statement?

MOO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/030723%20Order%20to%20Seal%20%20Redact%20-%20DoorDash%20Inc.pdf

edit spelling

Perhaps some of the refs to confidential sources in the warrants (not necesarily this warrant in particular) might simply refer to tips from members of the public? If LE deemed the tips/members of the public credible that could serve as a basis/partial basis for an affadavit to support a warrant. The affadavits are sealed to protect the members of the public's privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigation. Tips could also come from people who knew the victims well in the first weeks post crime. MOO

The Door Dash Warant was served 6th December so post BK being identified. Could be more due diligence - checking out other possible angles at that time. Avoiding tunnel vision etc.? Did the victims order often? If so, did they have regular contact with a particular driver? LE could have been checking out that possibility. MOO

ETA: SODDI 2 defense thrives on tunnel vision by LE/prosecuting investigators MOO. I see some of these warrants as e.gs of LEs thoroughness. MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/030723%20Order%20to%20Seal%20%20Redact%20-%20Yik%20Yak%20Inc.pdf

Yik Yak search warrant for his account goes back to June 1, 2022 to present. so it might not have been him just talking about the case after, but using it before to get close?

Yik Yak - Wikipedia - scary
In May 2022, a student revealed that, after analyzing app data, he was able to gain access to precise locations of Yik Yak users. The accuracy was within 10 to 15 feet and, in combination with user IDs, could potentially be used to reveal users' identities.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

If LE deemed the tips/members of the public credible that could serve as a basis/partial basis for an affadavit to support a warrant. The affadavits are sealed to protect the members of the public's privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigation.

Definitely could be but why not just redact the names, if they were even necessary to include? The reasons the affidavits are sealed vary. idk jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

ikr?! what the heck? Why would they need all the info about Door Dash? Did BK ever pose as a Door Dash guy or something and deliver food not ordered or was DD how he found them? This doesn't make sense.

the confidential source was in quite a few, too.

Looking at the documents a little closer (I did not check all of them)...the motions frequently use the confidential source reason, then the judge changes some of them to exclude the confidential source part in the order. Some of the orders do refer to reasons set forth in the motion, but I think maybe it doesn't refer to all the reasons set forth? MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Looking at the documents a little closer (I did not check all of them)...the motions frequently use the confidential source reason, then the judge changes some of them to exclude the confidential source part in the order. Some of the orders do refer to reasons set forth in the motion, but I think maybe it doesn't refer to all the reasons set forth? MOO

Actually, the first time that the court order refers to the motion and reason given. the 2.28 ones just to protect. pretty much the orders are going to give the reasons - this is the judge explaining why the search warrants are sealed and exempt from public records requests, so they can't be vague. this is why they vary based on time and specific reasons. imo ime

for ex:

For Door Dash the motion to seal states these reasons:
1. Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
2. Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
3. Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and
4. Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

The Court order seals the warrant Dec 9:
SEALED pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(g)(1) for the reasons stated in the said Motion

and subsequently order says this:
the court finds it necessary to seal in part and redact the record related to the search warrant because the documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person.

 

[Nila Aella]

Found this at the bottom of the ebay documents:

“THIS SEARCH WARRANT IS ISSUED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE, EBAY IS ORDERED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OR CONTENTS OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT 0R THE INFORMATION FURNISHED IN RESPONSE TO THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR PERIOD OF ONE (l) YEAR ORUNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/022823%20Order%20to%20Seal%20and%20Redact%20-%20Ebay%201.pdf

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

The Door Dash Warant was served 6th December so post BK being identified. Could be more due diligence - checking out other possible angles at that time. Avoiding tunnel vision etc.? Did the victims order often? If so, did they have regular contact with a particular driver? LE could have been checking out that possibility. MOO

ETA: SODDI 2 defense thrives on tunnel vision by LE/prosecuting investigators MOO. I see some of these warrants as e.gs of LEs thoroughness. MOO

That's a good point, but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure because that's pretty broad scope for a search warrant. Overly broad, I'd say. A search warrant for that night - definitely. Even for a month or so. but for 10 months? If I'm a judge, I'm going to want something more than that for a warrant that is supposed to be based on https://isc.idaho.gov/icr41https://isc.idaho.gov/icr41. ESP if there is no reason to believe that DD was involved or even relevant. jmo imo but if I'm DD legal, I'm going to want to know what you've got that begins to warrant that warrant.

Lawrence Mowery, having given Inc proof, upon oath, this day showing probable cause establishing grounds for issuing a search warrant and probable cause to believe that the property referred to and sought in or upon said premises consists of information related to the investigation ofthe November 13, 2022, homicides that occurred at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, to include...

And DD agrees = Community Help Hub

DoorDash is unable to process and will object to overly broad, vague, or unduly burdensome requests. Please ensure that your request is narrowly tailored to a legitimate law enforcement need and provide:

• Clear grounds for the legal basis for the request.
• Detailed specifics on the information requested. We will be unable to process overly broad or vague requests that do not identify the specific information sought.
• As much detail about the user in question as possible.
• The name of the issuing authority, the badge/ID number of the responsible agent or officer, an email address from a law-enforcement domain, and a direct contact number for the responsible agent or officer.

here's a definition of overly broad and without some reason to need 10 months of data that is based on actual investigative links instead of just spitballing, that's going to be a stretch imo:

The warrant should specify the crimes to which the evidence relates in order to avoid a general search. The search warrant affidavit may establish probable cause to believe that a particular individual committed the crime under investigation, but if the warrant authorizes a search for items that lack a probable cause connection to the crime under investigation, it is impermissibly overbroad. For example, one court decided that a warrant authorizing the seizure of “all files” in an insurance fraud investigation of a doctor was overbroad and that all evidence seized as a result of the deficient warrant should have been suppressed. It has become common for prosecutors to seek warrants for computers in all investigations, but since defendants rarely plan violent crimes on their computers, the warrant can be challenged as overbroad if it contains no specific allegations connecting the computer to the crime.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/mwga_december_2021_for_distribution.pdf

 

[Nila Aella]

Actually, the first time that the court order refers to the motion and reason given. the 2.28 ones just to protect. pretty much the orders are going to give the reasons - this is the judge explaining why the search warrants are sealed and exempt from public records requests, so they can't be vague. this is why they vary based on time and specific reasons. imo ime

for ex:

For Door Dash the motion to seal states these reasons:
1. Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
2. Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
3. Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and
4. Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

The Court order seals the warrant Dec 9:
SEALED pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(g)(1) for the reasons stated in the said Motion

and subsequently order says this:
the court finds it necessary to seal in part and redact the record related to the search warrant because the documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person.

Thank you! for the example, that helped a lot.
How can door dash be highly intimate or highly objectionable? Doesn't make sense.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Perhaps some of the refs to confidential sources in the warrants (not necesarily this warrant in particular) might simply refer to tips from members of the public? If LE deemed the tips/members of the public credible that could serve as a basis/partial basis for an affadavit to support a warrant. The affadavits are sealed to protect the members of the public's privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigation. Tips could also come from people who knew the victims well in the first weeks post crime. MOO

The Door Dash Warant was served 6th December so post BK being identified. Could be more due diligence - checking out other possible angles at that time. Avoiding tunnel vision etc.? Did the victims order often? If so, did they have regular contact with a particular driver? LE could have been checking out that possibility. MOO

ETA: SODDI 2 defense thrives on tunnel vision by LE/prosecuting investigators MOO. I see some of these warrants as e.gs of LEs thoroughness. MOO

Great idea about the tips being the source!
Your post made me realize it says confidential source NOT confidential informant. MOO

Informant vs Source - What's the difference?

As nouns the difference between informant and source is that informant is one who relays confidential information to someone, especially to the police; an informer while source is...

wikidiff.com

edit:added link to difference between source and informant

 

[jepop]

That's a good point, but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure because that's pretty broad scope for a search warrant. Overly broad, I'd say. A search warrant for that night - definitely. Even for a month or so. but for 10 months? If I'm a judge, I'm going to want something more than that for a warrant that is supposed to be based on https://isc.idaho.gov/icr41https://isc.idaho.gov/icr41. ESP if there is no reason to believe that DD was involved or even relevant. jmo imo but if I'm DD legal, I'm going to want to know what you've got that begins to warrant that warrant.

Lawrence Mowery, having given Inc proof, upon oath, this day showing probable cause establishing grounds for issuing a search warrant and probable cause to believe that the property referred to and sought in or upon said premises consists of information related to the investigation ofthe November 13, 2022, homicides that occurred at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, to include...

And DD agrees = Community Help Hub

DoorDash is unable to process and will object to overly broad, vague, or unduly burdensome requests. Please ensure that your request is narrowly tailored to a legitimate law enforcement need and provide:

• Clear grounds for the legal basis for the request.
• Detailed specifics on the information requested. We will be unable to process overly broad or vague requests that do not identify the specific information sought.
• As much detail about the user in question as possible.
• The name of the issuing authority, the badge/ID number of the responsible agent or officer, an email address from a law-enforcement domain, and a direct contact number for the responsible agent or officer.

here's a definition of overly broad and without some reason to need 10 months of data that is based on actual investigative links instead of just spitballing, that's going to be a stretch imo:

The warrant should specify the crimes to which the evidence relates in order to avoid a general search. The search warrant affidavit may establish probable cause to believe that a particular individual committed the crime under investigation, but if the warrant authorizes a search for items that lack a probable cause connection to the crime under investigation, it is impermissibly overbroad. For example, one court decided that a warrant authorizing the seizure of “all files” in an insurance fraud investigation of a doctor was overbroad and that all evidence seized as a result of the deficient warrant should have been suppressed. It has become common for prosecutors to seek warrants for computers in all investigations, but since defendants rarely plan violent crimes on their computers, the warrant can be challenged as overbroad if it contains no specific allegations connecting the computer to the crime.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/mwga_december_2021_for_distribution.pdf

Thanks for your thoughts. The Door Dash warrant is a litlle confusing to me owing to the reference by the court to the 'intimate' phrase in the retraction and sealing order of Febrauary this year. However beside that I don't see that Door Dash had an issue with the warrant. It was served on 6 December and the requested information was supplied by the company the next day as per the unsealed parts of the Return Warrant. As per unredacted sections of the warrant, the information Door Dash supplied included personal details regarding drivers and details of their cars for the time period you mention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
Just for this warrant, the only thing that mystifes me is the Feb phrasing of the order.

Perhaps the Court uses the 'intimate" phrasing in its most recent order because of the personal driver and vehicle details supplied. That still seems a little odd so bottom line atm is IDK and can only guess. Perhaps that phrase relates to the original affadavit for the search warrant in some way. That affdavit and the details of subsequent information provided remain under seal it seems. All just MOO and I don't feel there is really any way to find out more at the moment about why the intimate wording was used in the FEb order for this warrant. MOO

EBM: post restructure for clarity.

 

[SouthAussie]

Good catch. Range of dates and in Moscow, I think you are right about what they were looking for.
I did not know delivery trucks recorded video of deliveries? I just thought they took a photo of the package at the door.

I looked earlier to see what kind of video UPS has. Their trucks have a windshield mounted camera that can record outside their trucks, and there is/was controversy about UPS considering installing inside-facing cameras that could monitor the driver also. Seems to be a fairly recent thing (2021).

UPS Installs On-Truck Surveillance Cameras

UPS is starting to install outward and driver-facing cameras on package cars. Working Teamsters cannot afford to wait until management activates all of the spyware capability before our union takes action.

www.tdu.org

 

[NeverPersonal]

y'all are so much smarter than me with these legal things. i watched the trial of the wisconsin parade massacre guy and i thought i knew a decent amount (was explaining legal language to my bf, etc) but DANG. you guys go above and beyond and i salute you.

i know for a fact that cops & detectives look at websleuths and honestly? i bet someone important checks this thread here & there and gets thoughts and ideas from your guys' deep-diving, cohesive, well-thought-out posts (gonna add in an IMO, MOO just to be safe). i am super impressed. keep it up my friends

 

[NeverPersonal]

i see a few posts questioning why they would want doordash info whatsoever - xana was confirmed to have ordered some food from doordash within an hour (?) or so of her death. you could see containers on the counter from photos taken that were looking into the kitchen post-massacre. the warrant is likely for the CC information and to see past orders to check for any connections to anyone who could have committed such a thing.

hope that helps anyone who was confused as to why DD is involved at all

 

[jepop]

And the two WA sales too.
MOO

Yea, I actually meant to say WA buyers not Idaho! My brain is about fried for today with info overload.

 

[jepop]

y'all are so much smarter than me with these legal things. i watched the trial of the wisconsin parade massacre guy and i thought i knew a decent amount (was explaining legal language to my bf, etc) but DANG. you guys go above and beyond and i salute you.

i know for a fact that cops & detectives look at websleuths and honestly? i bet someone important checks this thread here & there and gets thoughts and ideas from your guys' deep-diving, cohesive, well-thought-out posts (gonna add in an IMO, MOO just to be safe). i am super impressed. keep it up my friends

We've all got something to add in different areas and I'd guess you are real smart, have alot to offer and do so too!

 

[Nila Aella]

Yea, I actually meant to say WA buyers not Idaho! My brain is about fried for today with info overload.

After thinking about it a little more, I think they are all important because there are students (WA and ID) that are from other States. JMO

 

[GRT]

An effective tool for deterring people?

Even though I find myself wanting murderers and child rapists put to death, I think it bears noting that the DP probably is not a deterrent.

I have to question whether someone intent on murder is in a rational state of mind, whereby they can logically weigh the benefits and risks of committing the crime. When you take a killer like BK (assuming he's found guilty), I doubt he thought he'd get caught so a DP likely wouldn't even be a consideration to him.

I think the DP--and all punitive measures--are most effective on the types of people who will never commit the crimes anyway.

JMOO

 

[Nila Aella]

It appears to me that they checked at least five potential sources (sales records) of knife?:

1. Amazon
2. Blue Ridge Knives
3. Ka-Bar
4. Walmart
5. eBay

If so I hope they got a hit for BCK. Wonder how the settled on BlueRidge Knives?

Admittedly just guessing and all MOO

I had a thought this morning that they might have looked for knives on FB marketplace. I searched, but did not see any mention in the meta platforms warrants listed. Where I live, marketplace (vs eBay) is the most popular place to buy and sell things. Not sure if it is the same in Idaho. JMO