A new filing by diminutive YouTuber Jose “Chille” DeCastro in the case of Oklahoma v. DeCastro saw the YouTuber demand a Franks Hearing in order to challenge the determination of probable cause that led to warrants for his arrest.
DeCastro conducted what he claimed to be both a First Amendment audit and a security check of parked vehicles in the parking lot of the Duncan, Oklahoma, police department on September 8, 2025.
During his audit, DeCastro claimed that he saw several unsecured AR-15 style weapons in the front seats of police vehicles. The YouTuber filmed himself attempting to open the doors of the police vehicles on a livestream to gain access to the interior of the vehicles. He was unsuccessful. He later entered the police station and informed the officers on duty of his actions.
DeCastro has claimed that his actions were lawful as he is a First Amendment auditor and he was officially conducting an investigation into lax security by police. The YouTuber did not state what authority he had that would grant him the ability to ignore local laws during the check nor did he schedule such a check with police officers before attempting to access the vehicles.
In his filing, DeCastro claims that Detective Suzannehe Smith’s probable cause affidavit willingly and negligently mischaracterized his actions as criminal during the so-called security check.
His filing relies heavily on quotations from his own livestream, where he claimed that he was performing the audit and security check with no malicious intent. He also alleged that Smith had knowledge of his livestream and willingly omitted his actions when he entered the police station and he spoke to Deputy Chief David Woods (identified as “Major Woods” in DeCastro’s document), and informed Woods of DeCastro’s actions.
The YouTuber also challenged the nature of his own actions and the charges against him and stated that because there was a three-month gap between the incident and his indictment, the indictment was motivated by his request for information about an unrelated case.
DeCastro is also challenging the role of notary Lori Adams, who notarized Smith’s probable cause affidavit. Adams was present in the parking lot and had asked DeCastro’s associates Heather Chandler and fellow YouTuber Wild Journey Nation not to film in her personal vehicle as she was concerned about private items belonging to her grandkids being filmed.
In his filing, DeCastro claimed Adams was aggressive towards the woman, despite Adams making small talk with and allowing the women the opportunity to pet her dog after her request not to film. DeCastro states in his filing that the brief interaction between the three women disqualified Adams from notarizing any documents related to his case.
DeCastro was not arrested after the September incident. He was later charged with three counts of Loiter in/Injure/Molest Motor Vehicle/Joy Ride. Each count carries penalties including up to a $500 fine and/or one year in county jail.
If the Franks hearing is granted, DeCastro is seeking to challenge probable cause by proving that Detective Smith knowingly lied or made false statements in the affidavit leading to his indictment. Should he prevail, Smith’s affidavit would presumably be thrown out and the charges against him dropped.
DeCastro recently filed an unsuccessful emergency temporary restraining order in Federal court with the Central District of California seeking to stay the execution of the warrant for his arrest based on these charges.
That emergency restraining order was accompanied by a lawsuit by DeCastro against the Duncan police alleging first amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution and conspiracy. The lawsuit was recently transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma at DeCastro’s request.
This is a developing news story.
At this point, when chilli is so far gone, he is believing his own press reports.
He will get the Frank’s hearing but hopefully they will demand it be done in person.
His basis for defense is: “I did it but as I am absolved of any criminal liability by a higher power of being a self proclaimed auditor.”
In other words, he was traveling not driving. He was testing the doors not trying to enter the vehicle and since he self reported, ie confessed, he is free to go about his business.
The three month to charge is well within the statute of limitations. Depending on the state and the crime or if it is Federal, there is a certain amount of time allowed for the state to charge someone. Typically, this is measured in years, like say 5 years or only 1 year. This is based on the legal notion that justice delayed is justice denied. So, charge the guy already. Well three months is within that period.
chilli wants to claim that it is retaliation but that is a conclusion based on no facts.
Also its a fallacy
From Wiki
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: ‘after this, therefore because of this’) is an informal fallacy that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession. This type of reasoning is fallacious because mere temporal succession does not establish a causal connection
This is not necessary connection between the two events, But should he have something called evidence aside from that whole time thing he can present it to the judge or jury.
JF DeCastro is also challenging the role of notary Lori Adams, who notarized Smith’s probable cause affidavit.
He is going after Adams for what?
She notarized the signature on an affidavit?
So take away the notarization and you still have a valid affidavit, Or you correct this with a new affidavit signed and notarized by someone else. Or you get the Detective to stand up in court and swear she wrote the affidavit. Or a hundred other ways.
You go after the important things not the stupid stuff.
Follow the logic. Say that Adams was biased. And? So what? It does not follow that because Adams is biased that the detective did not sign the affidavit.
But say they do toss the affidavit out. Just say. they won’t but just say. Then what happens? They rewrite it and re sign it to a new notary?
Double jeopardy only kicks in after the first witness having been sworn in and has begun to testify. Not before. So even if he was successful it would get him nowhere.
A lawyer, sitting on something like this, only something that was real unlike the chilli nothing burger we have here, would wait for the court case to start and then allow for the challenge to come in the cross examination of the witness. Use the witness to show the flaw in the case and then demand the trial be halted as the flaw was sufficient enough to cast doubt on the whole trial. What chilli is doing is trying a gotcha moment that is very popular with youtube lawyers. It has no legal significance but it looks all bad @$$ to the youtube followers, Sadly, they are not the ones who will decide the case or the law.
If he goes to court in person, he will be arrested. They will hold him on a 10K bond which he will get by crowd sourcing and promptly skip town never to be seen again.
The DA will make him an offer to plead to one count and take a suspended sentence of a year and maybe a small fine. But he will not be allowed near anything police in that town for a year or two?
chill will refuse and go to trial where he will be found guilty on all three charges. He will then get time served and say 2 years or probation and slightly larger fine.
If they arrest him in OK then he will file a LOLsuit against the cops that will have laid hands on him to do it.
And he will include everyone else including the cat that hangs around the PD.
If a cop touches him then you can expect a LOLsuit for “reasons”.
Already has two going now where cops laid hands on him and had audacity to cuff him.
One against some NV Highway Patrol officers and included a whole list of others in it.
That one was text book perfect in how the officers handled it.
But they touched him and that means an automatic LOLsuit.