A reminder of techniques that the Biden FBI or DOJ used against J6 defendants that have since been ruled unconstitutional by courts. The list would have grown except that President Trump's executive order ended the persecution and need for appeals. 1) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled on August 5, 2026 that mass cell "tower dump" data searches are per se unconstitutional general warrants under the Fourth Amendment because they sweep in location records for thousands of innocent bystanders without individualized probable cause, as was used against J6 defendants. 2) Chatrie v. United States - Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 29, 2026 that law enforcement acquisition of cellular location data via a geofence warrant constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment because individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in such digital history. This tactic was used against thousands of U.S. citizens related to J6. 3) Fischer v. United States - Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 28, 2024 that the federal obstruction charge 1512 (c)(2) used against January 6 Capitol riot defendants requires proof that the defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of physical records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding. This impacted hundreds of J6 defendants facing this charge. 4) United States v. Brock - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 1, 2024 that district judges improperly lengthened the sentences of more than 100 January 6 defendants by applying a "substantial interference with the administration of justice" enhancement. 5) United States v. Little - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 18, 2023 that federal sentencing laws do not permit a judge to impose a combined "split sentence" of both imprisonment and probation for a single petty misdemeanor offense as was done to J6 defendants. 6) United States v. Kyle - Federal judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that law enforcement use of license plate reader systems without a warrant is unconstitutional. This technique was used against J6 defendants.