Brian Hill’s Probation Agreement

Does it violate the Fourth Amendment?

By: Roberta Hill

In 2009, my son started a website and blog, which he named USWGO (United we Stand We the people run the Government.org). He wrote his own articles, made his own videos, as well as documentaries, and he interviewed many people on his YouTube channel. He developed his own website, and designed everything in a very professional way. He was getting thousands of hits everyday on his website, which is a really hard thing to do on the internet. I watched as he had to also deal with many kinds of attacks, because he was revealing corruption in our Federal government, as well as state corruption, town corruption and government corruption in other countries around the world. He had hackers constantly attacking his website, a lawsuit from Righthaven, LLC and a setup attempt. It was ultimately the setup attempt and police coercion that put an end to his website. A month after being kicked out of a town council meeting for asking the town lawyer and State Senator (pro tempore) a simple question, we both endured a police raid on our home in Mayodan, NC.

The day after the police raid, we were both interrogated by the police. They questioned me first and told me that they had found child poronography on my son’s computer. I told them that my son had been setup. They asked me a lot of very personal and invasive questions, and generally made me feel very uncomfortable and nervous. I blabberd like an idiot, not realizing that I had rights and should have not answered their questions without a lawyer. We were very poor at the time, and I knew we could not afford a lawyer. They then interrogated my son all by himself and they did so around lunchtime. My son is a diabetic, so that was a bad time to question him, and I do not know if his blood sugar could have gone down. Basically, they got him to confess to something he did not do. My son is autistic, and therefore he suffers with a communication and behavior disorder. He told me that he was confused, because they would talk about adult pornography and then talk about child poronogrphy, switching the topics over and over again. Eventually, they pressured him into confessing, and without a lawyer or autism expert.

In December of 2013, he was arrested for possession of child poronography. He spent about 11 months in jail and Butner Prison (for a mental evaluation) while waiting for the hearing and waiting for sentencing. During that time, he was assigned two incompetent lawyers, and neither one gave Brian a copy of the Discovery papers, which are documents that contained the evidence against him. His lawyer pressured his family to get Brian to take the plea offer that the government offered to him, or he would get 20 years in prison. No one wants to ever take the plea agreement, however no one wants to gamble with their life either. His lawyer had no hope to offer us, as he seemed to have no proof to defend Brian. In the end, Brian made the decision to take the plea agreement, because he basically had no choice. Brian got time served and 10 years on Probation and he was placed on the Sex Offender Registry.

After he was convicted, Brian and his family were finally able to see the Discovery papers at his second lawyer’s office. We were told that he did not have the right to get photocopies of these documents, and that all we could do is look at them. The file folder was stacked very high, and we thought it was going to take hours to go through it all. We noticed there were no photos or proof of child poronogrphy in the Discovery, only words, but no proof. Brian’s grandma also noticed that the dates were way off. There was 11 months of the year that they claimed he downloaded CP, which he did not even have his computers, because they had all been taken in the police raid. This left just 1 month to explain. It was a few years later that Brian’s grandma was rereading the search warrant, and she discoved that the very first date that the police and SBI claimed that he started downloading CP was the EXACT day that the police officer went into Brian’s computer using peer to peer software to connect with his computer. If Brian was really downloading CP on his computer, then why was the start date the same EXACT date that the police officer entered into his computer using P2P or peer to peer sharing? Had the police officer shared CP to Brian’s computer to set him up? Interestedly, my son had found out that this particular police officer had a sister that was an assistant to the state Senator’s son. We found the connection to the state Senator, which Brian had been openly writing articles about his corruption, to be more than a coincidence.

Brian has now been on probation for about 10 years and 3 months. He got 4 years added to his probation for a misdemeanor, which the probation office considered to be a probation violation. He has not been allowed on the internet for 10 years, but now his current probation officer wants to monitor his video game systems. On April 25th, 2024, I witnessed something that I have never witnessed before with probation officers. My son came up to my apartment to tell me that the probation officers were looking through his video games and looking at his TV’s. I went downstairs with him to see what was going on. They were looking at every video game system he had and even looking at his two TV’s. One of the probation officers told us that my son was in violation for having several video games, one smart TV, a ROKU stick and an old cell phone that he used to play music for his plants. The probation officer explained that Brian was not allowed to have any kind of device that was internet capable, and therefore he was in violation of his probation agreement. They had us to look at the conditions of his probation agreement, and we were astonished to see that the wording of the agreement he signed during the pandemic had actually changed the wording to “internet capable” devices. His older agreement with probation had only said that he was not allowed to be on the internet with his computer, and nothing about other devices. That weekend we took a smart TV, and all of Brian’s video game systems out of his apartment. We were afraid that they could come in and arrest him for probation violation at anytime. Now that we knew that they considered his video games and TV to be a probation violation, we weren’t about to take any chances. His old probation officer had allowed Brian to play video games, as long as he wasn’t on the internet, and he allowed him to watch streaming on TV. The new probation officer suddenly changed the rules, and they said he was in violation when he was not. These are tricks that probation officers can perpetuate on people to try to violate them on their probation.

In September of 2024, Brian’s probation officer wanted for Brian to sign a new agreement. On January 30th, the probation office wanted to make another change to include a condition that we believe is unconstitutional. Read it for yourself below.

7) The defendant shall submit to search and seizure of his or her computer, as defined in 19
U.S.C. § 1030(e)(l), electronic communication devices, data storage devices, or other
Internet-capable devices. This may include the retrieval and copying of all data. The
defendant should warn any other residents or occupants that the premises or vehicles in
which the defendant may be located could be subject to search pursuant to this condition.

This condition literally says that Brian would submit to searches wherever he may be located. This condition is not specific to just his residence, and it also includes vehicles in which he is inside. Brian does not own a vehicle, but his mother does. Also, Brian spends a considerable amount of time in his Mother’s apartment, which is located just above Brian’s apartment. This condition means that anywhere Brian is located could be subject to search. Does this mean that if he is located in his Mother’s apartment, Mother’s car or at his Grandparent’s house that the probation office can search any residence or vehicle without a search warrant? If so, this is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.