UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No.: 2:14-CR-71 PS

 )

SAMUEL BRADBURY )

OPINION AND ORDER

The government has charged Samuel Bradbury with wilfully threatening the use

of fire or an explosive in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). It alleges Bradbury posted a

message on Facebook in which he threatened to bomb the Tippecanoe County

Courthouse and kill certain law enforcement officers and judges. A few days after the

post went up, it came to the attention of Detective Eager of the West Lafayette Police

Department. Eager summarized Bradbury’s post in an affidavit for a warrant to search

two addresses associated with Bradbury, which a Tippecanoe County judge promptly

issued. Bradbury argues that he is entitled to a Franks hearing because Eager

deliberately misled the issuing judge by omitting key facts from the warrant affidavit.

For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. 

Background

On the evening of June 19, 2014, Samuel Bradbury, a twenty-something

Tippecanoe County resident, signed on to Facebook and posted a message on his

“wall.” I am going to reproduce Bradbury’s post in full, since this motion turns on the

content of the post:

1
I can’t keep silent on this conspiracy anymore. I have to reveal some truth. My

buddy and comrade Ant has been catching some flack for some of his posts

about killing cops. I have to let out the truth. Jerad and Amanda Miller were

losers. They were part of our group, the 765 Anarchists, the town’s cop killing

group run by none other than myself, Sam Bradbury. When we discovered that

Jerad and Amanda were CIs and in with the boys in blue, we sent them out to

the Bundy Ranch to cause controversy elsewhere because we didn’t need them

snitching on our business. I hadn’t heard from him since that event, but some of

our comrades gave the command and that’s why Jerad and Amanda Miller killed

those cops in Las Vegas. I thought Jerad was cool, but fuck him, he was a CI.

Great job I must say, but not what we wanted. We, the 765 Anarchists, including

myself and Ant are part of a much larger plot that we’ve been forming for years

to kill cops in the local area, and specifically to take out WLPD Officer Troy

Green and Tippecanoe County Sheriff, Tracy Brown. Jerad and Amanda were

just following 765 Anarchist group orders, but they had fallen out of favor with

the group after we discovered they were working with the police as confidential

informants. While we are glad that they killed some police, the 765 Anarchists

are looking to make waves in the 765 area, specifically Lafayette. The top two on

our hit list are Troy Green of the WLPD and Tracy Brown, Tippecanoe County

Sheriff. We have field agents out currently gathering information and planning

the attack. We have gathered enough thermite and explosives that we intend to

not only kill those two pigs and any others who get in our way, but also to cause

extreme damage to the county’s various offices’ equipment, including police cars

and police buildings. Before the month is over, we intend to incinerate and

destroy no less than 6 police cars, as well as the Tippecanoe County Courthouse,

with hits specifically targeted on Judge Les Meade and Judge Loretta Rush also.

The courthouse will be blown to pieces within the month, we have agents

operating all over the city, and some all over the country. Ant is nothing more

than a fall boy, although we do have plans to use him in a suicide strike on the

police or a suicide bombing on a local police building before we are through. Our

arsenal is massive, and our group has well over 50 supremely dedicated

members who are willing to die. I can’t let this story go on falsely anymore, Jerad

and Amanda Miller didn’t do shit, they were outcasts of the group, but they

brought us the attention we needed. I, Sam Bradbury, am responsible for the

organization of the group and the acquisition of the chemical weapons,

incendiaries, explosives, munitions, and general arms. We will not stop this plan,

we will cause chaos and terror. We will destroy the Tippecanoe County

Courthouse in a blaze of glory and we will take out Tippecanoe County Sheriff

Tracy Brown, no matter what the cost, even if we lose all of our members in the

process, we will not go down without a fight and causing serious damage. So

watch out, the cop killers are out. The 765 Anarchists are going to purge the vile

2
pig scum from this land and restore constitutional rights to the people. Call us

crazy, call us killers, call us heroes and patriots. We’re okay with all of it.

Remember - KILL COPS, STICK PIGS, AND WATCH OUT FOR THE 765

ANARCHISTS, INCLUDING SAM BRADBURY AND ANT!

(FREE SPEECH EXERCISE FOOLS)

Bradbury’s Facebook post makes repeated references to two individuals named

“Jerad and Amanda Miller.” This assuredly caught the attention of law enforcement.

This is because Jerad and Amanda Miller are two former Lafayette, Indiana residents

who shot and killed two police officers in Las Vegas on June 8, 2014. See Ron Wilkins &

Steve Porter, Las Vegas Cop Killers Nurtured Rage in Lafayette, Lafayette Journal & Courier

June 9, 2014 available at http://www.jconline.com/story/news/crime/2014/06/09/

las-vegas-cop-killers-tied-lafayette/10227705 (visited May 7, 2015). 

Bradbury’s post went up around 11 p.m. Shortly after that, one of Bradbury’s

Facebook friends took screenshots of the post in order to preserve it. The friend was

concerned about the post, and so forwarded the screenshots to another individual the

next morning, June 20, 2014. That evening the recipient of the screenshots passed them

along to Lafayette Police Officer Maxson. Maxson, in turn, told Lafayette Police Sgt. Jeff

Clark, who sent out an email concerning the post to all Tippecanoe County law

enforcement on June 21st. This email came to the attention of Detective Eager of the

West Lafayette Police Department who applied for a warrant to search two addresses

associated with Samuel Bradbury that same day [DE 45-1 at 1-2]. 

In the warrant affidavit, Eager stated that he was involved in an ongoing death

3
threat investigation and had received Sgt. Clark’s June 21 email regarding Bradbury’s

Facebook post [DE 45-1 at 1]. Eager attested that Sgt. Clark advised that four

screenshots of the threatening post were forwarded to Officer Maxson from a concerned

citizen. Eager reported that he had spoken with Maxson, who advised him that the

screenshots were taken about an hour after the post was made, and Eager determined

that the post was made at approximately 11:18 p.m. on the evening of June 19, 2014. 

Eager then proceeded to provide a three paragraph summary of Bradbury’s post.

He noted that Bradbury wrote approvingly of the actions of Jerad and Amanda Miller

in Las Vegas and claimed that the Millers were part of the 765 Anarchists group that he

purported to lead. (“765" is the area code for much of central Indiana, including

Lafayette). Eager wrote in his affidavit that, according to Bradbury’s Facebook post, the

765 Anarchists group has been forming for years to kill cops in the local area and that

the group had specifically targeted West Lafayette Police Officer Troy Green and

Tippecanoe County Sheriff Tracy Brown. Eager recounted Bradbury’s claim that he had

stockpiled thermite and explosives and that the Anarchists had “field agents” out

planning an attack. Eager wrote that Bradbury’s post stated that the 765 Anarchists

planned to kill police officers and cause extreme damage to the county’s equipment,

police cars, and buildings by the end of the month. Next, Eager stated, “[t]he post also

[sic] to ‘incinerate and destroy’ no less than 6 police cars, the Tippecanoe County

Courthouse, and ‘hits specifically targeting’ Judge Les Meade and Judge Loretta Rush.”

[DE 45-1 at 1]. 

4
Eager’s paraphrasing of Bradbury’s original post attempted to capture the flavor

of the post. For example he quoted Bradbury’s boast that the Anarchists would “destroy

the Tippecanoe County courthouse in a blaze of glory” and “purge the vile pig scum

from the land and restore constitutional rights” [DE 45-1 at 2]. Of special concern to

Bradbury is the fact that Eager did not include the “Free Speech Fools” disclaimer that

Bradbury appended to the end of the post. Bradbury believes that disclaimer puts

everything else into context, and it was misleading to keep it out of the warrant

application.

A Tippecanoe County judge issued the warrant to search addresses associated

with Bradbury for computers, cell phones or other devices capable of connecting to the

internet as well as explosives and weapons. The West Lafayette police also applied for a

warrant to search Bradbury’s Facebook records [DE 45-1 at 4-5]. While conducting the

search, West Lafayette police observed handwritten papers that mentioned words

suggestive of suicide or violence. The police obtained yet another warrant in order to

search those, and any other papers, that might detail Bradbury’s plans [DE 45-1 at 3].

Bradbury has moved for a Franks hearing [DE 45], arguing Detective Eager

omitted material facts from the warrant affidavit

Discussion

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a

defendant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the material statements

in an affidavit if the defendant “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false

5
statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was

included by affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is

necessary to the finding of probable cause.” Id. at 155-56 (emphasis added); United States

v. Merritt, 361 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2004). To be entitled to a Franks hearing, the

Defendant must demonstrate: (1) that the search warrant affidavit contained erroneous

information or a material omission; and (2) that the police officers either knew that the

affidavit was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. United States v. Amerson, 185 F.3d

676, 688 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Carlisle, No. 1:07-CR-65, 2007 WL 67095, at *3

(N.D. Ind. Feb. 28, 2007). The defendant should accompany the allegations of falsehood

or reckless disregard for the truth with “affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable

statements of witnesses.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Even if a defendant meets this difficult

burden, a hearing must be granted only if the affidavit would have been insufficient to

establish probable cause had it contained the correct or omitted information. Id.

The Defendant has not made the necessary showing to meet the high standard

necessary to entitle him to a Franks hearing. Bradbury points to two specific omissions,

which I’ll address in a minute, but his primary argument is more general. Bradbury

argues that Detective Eager misrepresented his post by paraphrasing it instead of

copying it in full. He argues that the post was a flight-of-fancy, a “story,” about

“restor[ing] constitutional rights to the people” [DE 45 at 7]. In the post, Bradbury used

“symbolic imagery” and piled up increasingly “fantastical” claims in order to drive

home his message about the Constitution. Id. Detective Eager’s paraphrase, so this

6
argument goes, ripped Bradbury’s story out of context and stripped it of its nuance. By

simply listing all of Bradbury’s threats, Eager made it seem like Bradbury was, well,

threatening. 

Bradbury’s argument fails for the simple reason that the Facebook post, by itself,

provided enough probable cause to justify a search warrant. So whatever “context” was

lost in translation is immaterial. Bradbury’s post is alarming. Perhaps one might read it

to be nothing more than the ranting of an angry man. But no rational judge presented

with the entirety of the Facebook post could come to the conclusion that probable cause

didn’t exist to authorize the search. What judge would take that chance?

Probable cause exists where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to

warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a

crime will be found. U.S. v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ornelas v.

United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996). The Facebook post easily meets this standard. The

post sets forth a specific, plausible-seeming plot to kill local law enforcement officers

and bomb local buildings and equipment. Bradbury targeted specific individuals who

would be vulnerable to the type of attack Bradbury described. There is nothing

fantastical or implausible about killing a local sherif. He described the specific means he

planned to employ - “thermite and explosives”- as well as the time-frame for the

attacks - “before the end of the month.” He claimed that he was responsible for

acquiring the weapons necessary to carry out the plan. And, in order to enhance his

credibility, Bradbury associated himself and his movement with two real-life cop-killers

7
with real ties to the Lafayette area who had killed two police officers just weeks before. 

If Bradbury intended his post to be symbolic or political hyperbole, then he

missed the mark by a wide margin. In the course of the post, Bradbury makes some

incredible claims regarding the size and reach of his “765 Anarchist” group, but the

bulk of the post was alarmingly specific and concrete. A statement like “If I’m drafted,

the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” is political hyperbole. See U.S. v. Watts,

394 U.S. 705 (1969). “Before the month is over, we intend to incinerate and destroy no

less than 6 police cars, as well as the Tippecanoe County Courthouse, with hits

specifically targeted on Judge Les Meade and Judge Loretta Rush also”is a statement of

a far different order. 

Bradbury puts a lot of stress on the fact that Eager omitted the “Free Speech

Exercise Fools” disclaimer from the affidavit. Bradbury argues that the disclaimer

unmistakably signals that the post is a symbolic, fantastical political message. I don’t

buy it. It is certainly possible that a reasonable person would read that disclaimer as

signaling that the preceding 200-or-so lines were just a lark. But I think the more

reasonable interpretation of that line is that Bradbury was trying to have his cake and

eat it too. He wanted to make a credible, serious threat, but wanted to shield himself

from any potential legal trouble. So he tacked on a perfunctory disclaimer after two

hundred lines of violent threats. Unfortunately for him, it didn’t work 

In order to get a Franks hearing, Bradbury needed to make a substantial showing

that the warrant affidavit would have been insufficient to establish probable cause if

8
Detective Eager had copied Bradbury’s entire message rather than paraphrasing it. See

Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Since the Facebook message sufficed to provide probable cause, 

Bradbury has not met his burden. 

Bradbury points to two other specific omissions from the warrant affidavit. First,

Bradbury takes issue with the fact that Eager failed to mention that Judge Rush had

been promoted to the Indiana Supreme Court, and thus she no longer worked at the

Lafayette courthouse. In the post, Bradbury wrote that the 765 Anarchists planned to

“incinerate and destroy . . . the Tippecanoe County Courthouse, with hits specifically

targeted on Judge Les Meade and Judge Loretta Rush also” [DE 45-1 at 1]. The theory is

that, if Eager had included this fact about Justice Rush in the affidavit, the issuing judge

would have realized that Bradbury was just goofing off because it would be impossible

to kill Rush by blowing up the Tippecanoe County Courthouse since she’s based in

Indianapolis. (And what are we to make of the threat against Judge Meade? Bradbury

doesn’t say). 

First, Bradbury is misreading his own sentence. He did not write that the

Anarchists are going to blow up the courthouse in order to target Rush. The sentence

states that the Anarchists are going to blow up the courthouse and also “hit” Rush. So

Justice Rush’s presence or absence at the courthouse is irrelevant to the plan. Second,

the warrant was issued by one of Justice Rush’s former colleagues on the Tippecanoe

County bench who must have been aware of his former colleague’s whereabouts.

Finally, the idea that Bradbury not only knew about Justice Rush’s appointment but

9
referenced it in his message as some kind of elaborate in-joke is just preposterous. A far

more reasonable interpretation of this supposed discrepancy is that Bradbury was

ignorant of Justice Rush’s good fortune. 

Finally, Bradbury argues that the police officer misled the issuing judge by

making it seem like a concerned citizen was so disturbed by Bradbury’s post that she

immediately contacted the police when, in fact, there was a significant delay between

the posting and its being forwarded to the police. Here, I find that Bradbury is just

mistaken. The warrant affidavit clearly shows a delay between the posting and its

getting to the police. The affidavit states that the post was made around 11 pm on June

19, that a concerned citizen took screenshots of it around an hour later, but it did not

come to police attention until June 21st. So contrary to Bradbury’s claim, the warrant

accurately lays out the delay between when Bradbury made the post and when the

police were notified.

Conclusion

The Court hereby DENIES the Defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing [DE 45].

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 11, 2015

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10