The Cops Left One Fact Out of the Warrant. It Changes Everything | Reckless Ben Raid

Overview

Texas civil rights attorney Brandon Greyel argues that an American Fork Police raid on Ben Snider’s Airbnb was authorized by a search-warrant affidavit that omitted (or misstated) material facts. In particular, Greyel claims the affidavit failed to reflect that Snider had a legitimate, verified basis for his actions (serving civil process) and that a “stalking/harassment” narrative was constructed to justify entering and effectively arresting him.

What happened (as framed in the video)

Two separate documents were central to the case:

1. Search-warrant affidavit Presented to the judge to justify entry to look for evidence (the document Greyel focuses on most).

2. Probable-cause affidavit Created to justify charges/arrest, since (according to Greyel) the search warrant itself did not authorize arrest.

How the raid was executed (Greyel’s emphasis)

Greyel argues officers executed the raid and handcuffed/arrested Snider immediately, even though the search warrant appears limited to searching for specific property (Lego merchandise), not arresting anyone.

Core legal theory: “material omission” and weak warrant logic

Greyel’s main claim is that the warrant affidavit “missing the one fact” undermines probable cause.

What Greyel says the affidavit did wrong

The affidavit (by Officer Cole G. Richardson) allegedly tied the search to stolen Lego merchandise, but Greyel claims the supporting narrative was:

• Inconsistent
• Hedged
• Critically connected to allegations of “stalking” without a real legal basis linking “stolen Legos” to “stalking”

“Rubber stamp” review

Greyel argues the judge effectively signed the warrant without meaningful review because the affidavit allegedly:

• Included incorrect details (such as dates and what Snider had done previously)
• Relied on speculation about activity at the residence
• Treated speech/signage and fundraising activity as if they were evidence of a stalking crime
• Mischaracterized or expanded the narrative in ways that supported “raid-and-seize” rather than a true evidence-gathering purpose

Franks v. Delaware (1978)

Greyel invokes Franks v. Delaware (1978), arguing that knowingly or recklessly omitting a material fact from a warrant affidavit can defeat the warrant. He contends the omission of the legitimacy/verification of Snider’s civil-case purpose is exactly the kind of omission that would undercut probable cause.

Qualified immunity: why the civil case may be hard even if the warrant was wrong

Greyel explains the two-part qualified immunity test for suing officers:

1. Did the officer violate a constitutional right?
2. Was the right clearly established in a prior case with similar facts?

He argues:

• There are strong arguments for a Fourth Amendment violation, such as entering/seizing beyond what the warrant authorizes, or using a property warrant as a vehicle for arrest.
• But under prong two, officers may avoid liability unless there is a prior, on-point case addressing essentially the same conduct in the relevant jurisdiction.

He also claims the system often protects officers even when they are wrong because plaintiffs must find precedent directly matching the scenario.

Probable-cause affidavit alleged to be “written after the arrest”

Greyel says the probable-cause affidavit (signed later) was created to justify arrest/charges after:

• officers had already entered, detained, and interrogated Snider
• the probable-cause document allegedly “cherry-picked” statements to justify holding him in jail

On that theory, it cannot explain the original entry, because it allegedly did not exist when the judge authorized the search.

Speech/protest and fundraising treated as criminal evidence

Greyel repeatedly criticizes the officers’ approach to:

• Signs accusing someone of wrongdoing
• GoFundMe-related activity
• How police allegedly treated these as presumptively false/illegal rather than protected expression—or at least requiring verification.

Broader assessment / intended takeaway

Greyel’s bottom-line verdict

• Prong 1 (wrongfulness): likely yes — the raid/warrant process was unlawful.
• Prong 2 (clearly established law): may be no — qualified immunity could still prevent damages.

Why fight anyway

Greyel argues Snider should still pursue the case because victories can clarify the law for future cases, even if immediate officer liability is unlikely.

Presenters / contributors

• Brandon Greyel — Texas civil rights attorney; video presenter/primary narrator