Section 1: Summary

This summary was generated by AI and has been lightly edited.

Header

• Date: February 10, 2026 (approx. 9:00 AM – 12:07 PM)
• Court / Case: U.S. District Court; Case No. 4:25-CR-259 (multiple defendants)
• Judge: Mark Pittman
• Parties Present:
• Prosecution: Assistant U.S. Attorney (name not recorded; Note-Taker B observed the prosecutor was “quite mumbly”)
• Defense attorneys: Cody Cofer (Mr. Cofer was addressed by the judge; per cheat sheet he represents Autumn Hill, but Note-Taker A recorded the judge addressing him during the Sanchez Estrada ruling — he may have been present at the defense table for both matters)
• Defendants present: Daniel Sanchez Estrada, Autumn Hill, Elizabeth Soto
• Type of proceeding: Pre-trial motion hearings — Franks hearing, motions to suppress, motion in limine

---

Key Takeaways

• All defense motions were denied. The Franks motion (Sanchez Estrada), the motion to suppress / motion in limine (Hill), and the motion to suppress search warrants (Soto) were all denied.
• Sanchez Estrada has no standing to challenge the Denton apartment search warrant. The judge found he was not a resident and had no expectation of privacy.
• No Franks violation found. The judge ruled there were no false statements, no intent to deceive, and no false statements that established probable cause.
• Hill’s motion in limine was taken under advisement. The suppression motion was denied without prejudice. The judge expressed willingness to “protect Ms. Hill” and encouraged face-to-face discussion with the prosecution about redacting co-defendant Morris’s statements.
• Soto’s suppression motion denied. The judge found the search warrant affidavits were not “bare bones,” distinguished the defense’s cited Wilson case, and found probable cause was met for the vehicle and home searches.
• The judge stated the court “does not agree or accept” the statements in the warrant regarding anti-government ideology and conspiracy — but found them sufficient for probable cause purposes.

---

Narrative Summary

The court heard three pre-trial defense motions on February 10, 2026. All three were denied.

1. Franks Motion — Daniel Sanchez Estrada (approx. 9:00 AM – 10:20 AM)

The hearing on the Franks motion (a challenge arguing that law enforcement made false statements in a search warrant affidavit) began at approximately 9:00 AM. Note-takers arrived at 9:57 AM during a recess. Sanchez Estrada (“Des”/”Dez”) was present at the defense table. The judge returned at 10:10 AM.

The judge reviewed case law on standing, referencing a Jefferson case [phonetic — noted by Note-Taker C], and a 5th Circuit case from 2013 regarding invited visitors. He then addressed Mr. Cofer in the courtroom:

Judge: “Mr. Cofer, you look relaxed, you should not. This is not the place to be relaxed. This court is a very serious place.”

The judge ruled that Sanchez Estrada does not have standing to challenge the search warrant for the Denton apartment. The reasoning: Sanchez Estrada was seen taking a box to the residence, but someone else took it inside because he did not have a key. He was not a resident, so the box was considered abandoned when he walked away, and there was no 4th Amendment expectation of privacy. The court noted that the distinction between car and residence ownership of evidence was insufficient for an expectation of privacy, and that being an invited visitor is insufficient under 5th Circuit precedent.

The judge further found no Franks violation regarding the searches of two other homes, holding that (1) no false statements were made, (2) there was no intent to deceive, and (3) no false statements established probable cause. The judge quoted from intercepted phone conversations between Maricela Rueda and her mother, and between Rueda and Sanchez Estrada, including: “Danny isn’t involved in any of this. I’m telling you this just in case he, he, he, [laughingly] over heard anything, you can explain if he doesn’t know” and “he would know what is going on.” Note-Taker C captured additional snippets: “Mari says that Dani doesn’t know,” “Ines doesn’t know,” “Mari: Danny can explain,” and “Mari tells Dez to tell the community what happened” and to “get stuff out of the house.”

The judge concluded that the “go to the house” statement was not misleading, there were no material omissions, and it was reasonable based on these conversations to believe contraband would be found. The judge acknowledged it “could have been a misunderstanding, but the defense has not proven probable cause.”

Motion denied at 10:20 AM.

2. Motion to Suppress / Motion in Limine — Autumn Hill (filed as Cameron Arnold) (approx. 10:50 AM – 11:05 AM)

After a recess, Autumn Hill and Elizabeth Soto were brought into the courtroom at 10:30 and seated in the jury box. At 10:40, Hill was seated at the defense table and Soto was escorted out. Hill made eye contact with family in the gallery and exchanged heart-hands gestures; she cried.

The judge made a statement about wanting to be respectful of Hill’s legal name change. He asked the defendant to state her name for the record. Hill identified herself as Autumn Hill. The judge stated he would use her preferred name and she/her pronouns, and clarified that “the name used on the filing was not the choice of the court.”

The defense argued that objectionable evidence — statements made by co-defendant Meagan Morris against Hill — should be suppressed. The judge suggested that this matter could be resolved through face-to-face conversation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office about appropriate redactions, commenting:

Judge: “This isn’t WW3.”

The prosecution (described by Note-Taker B as “quite mumbly”) stated that redactions were not possible in a 2-minute video. The defense responded that the video the prosecution was referencing did not apply to this motion and that there was no way to redact Morris’s testimony. The judge acknowledged the motion “has merit but it is not workable.”

Judge: “Let’s see if we can protect Ms. Hill.”

The suppression motion was denied without prejudice (meaning it can be raised again). The judge stated he could not make a premature ruling. The defense then requested a motion in limine (a request to exclude certain evidence at trial), which the judge took under advisement. Hill was escorted out.

3. Motion to Suppress Search Warrants — Elizabeth Soto (approx. 11:05 AM – 12:07 PM)

Soto returned to the courtroom at 11:05. The defense focused its argument on the first two of three search warrants — the vehicle search and the home search — acknowledging the 4th Amendment affords less protection to vehicles than homes but arguing there was still insufficient probable cause.

The defense argued that the only facts supporting the warrants were that Soto was arrested near the scene and her home address was on her ID. No one saw her going to her vehicle to retrieve anything. What was found in co-defendant Morris’s car — firearms, body armor, muddy conditions — had nothing to do with Soto. The flyers and propaganda material found at Morris’s home likewise had no connection to Soto. There was no evidence Soto ever visited Morris’s home or that they rode together.

Defense: “I still don’t see what this had to do with her home.”

The judge engaged with the defense argument, asking how much weight the car’s proximity to the scene should carry. He drew an analogy:

Judge: “For example a domestic abuse case, it doesn’t give a right to search their car. I get what you’re saying now. Sorry I’m slow.”

The prosecution argued probable cause was met, citing the affidavits: Morris’s van was leaving the scene with firearms and body armor; two individuals including Soto were found two blocks away heading toward her nearby car; propaganda material was found at Morris’s home establishing a “nexus.” The prosecution repeatedly used the phrase “sufficient nexus” and referenced “people in black,” digital and print media communications, and the search for guns, body armor, ammunition, cell phones, and radios. The defense cited the Wilson case, arguing it had stronger evidence and was still found to be bare-bones by this court.

The judge recessed at 11:30 for approximately 20 minutes to review the Wilson case and the affidavits.

Upon returning at 11:52, the judge distinguished Wilson, finding that bare-bones affidavits are those with “wholly conclusory statements” that lack well-reasoned justification (e.g., listing only biographic information and that a crime occurred). The affidavits in the Soto case, by contrast, explained who, what, when, where, and why across approximately 10 pages. The judge found they were not bare-bones and provided sufficient nexus.

The judge detailed the affidavits’ account: the arrest was minutes after the shooting; a co-defendant fled the scene in a vehicle containing multiple firearms; the group was alleged to have communicated through digital, social, and print media to spread anti-government propaganda, plan the Prairieland attack, and maintain printed materials in their homes. The warrant sought evidence related to attempted murder and conspiracy, including radios, guns, body armor, and printed materials.

The judge repeated multiple times that “the attackers used digital, social, and print media to communicate.” He referenced page 9 of the affidavit in particular. Notably, the judge stated:

Judge: The court “does not agree or accept the statements in the warrant” — but found this is what was “here and sworn.”

The judge also stated:

Judge: “First and foremost is defendants need to be protected their constitutional rights, what’s allowed under constitution, proper evidence, full fair trial, all are innocent until proven guilty.”

Motion denied at 12:07 PM. Court adjourned.

---

Incidents and Atmosphere

• Court security: A Court Security Officer told the gallery that the judge ordered no more going in and out during the hearing.
• Defendant appearance: Autumn Hill made eye contact and heart-hands with family in the gallery; family responded with heart-hands; Hill cried. A Federal Marshal standing behind Hill was looking at his phone during this moment.
• Elizabeth Soto’s conditions: Note-Taker B observed that Soto was wearing a yellow jumpsuit with “Tarrant County Jail” on the back, and was chained at the hands and feet. Chains were audibly jingling.
• Media presence: A KERA reporter was present in the courtroom.
• Judge’s language: Note-Taker C observed that the judge referred to the Prairieland protest as an “attack.” The warrant affidavits also used the term “attackers,” which the judge repeated in his ruling.

---

Section 2: Full Notes

Note-Taker A — 20260210_1.pdf

Pre-trial Motion Notes
02/10/2026 (9:57AM)

Court was on recess for Judge to consider the arguments. Des was present at the defense table. Had a Franks motion at 9AM.

10:10 Judge re-entered the courtroom

Case 4:25-CR-259-50

• Judge reviewed case law regarding standing then suddenly stopped and addressed Des’s attorney. “Mr. Cofer, you look relaxed, you should not. This is not the place to be relaxed. This court is a very serious place.”
• Finds Mr. Sanchez does not have standing to challenge warrant of the Denton apartment because Mr. Sanchez was seen taking the box to the residence and someone else took it in because Mr. Sanchez did not have a key. He was not a resident of the apartment so the box was considered abandoned when he walked away, therefore there was no expectation of privacy.
• The difference between car and residence ownership of evidence allowed is insufficient for 4th Amendment expectation of privacy.
• An invited visitor is insufficient per 5th circuit case 2013
• Determined – failed to meet burden. No Franks violation to search other 2 homes because 1) no false statements were made, 2) no intent to deceive, 3) no false statements established probable cause.
• Statements in warrant were based on context of conversations between Ms. Rueda and her mother and Ms. Rueda and Mr. Sanchez. Judge quotes transcript: “Danny isn’t involved in any of this. I’m telling you this just in case he, he, he, [laughingly] over heard anything, you can explain if he doesn’t know.” and “he would know what is going on”
• There were no material omissions. Ms. Rueda told Mr. Sanchez to take care of animals and move whatever you need to at the house. Judge states that it could have been a misunderstanding, but the defense has not proven probable cause. Based on these conversations it was reasonable to believe there was a probability contraband would be found.

10:20 Motion denied

• Court recesses for 10 minutes

---

Court Security Officer “The judge has asked me to notify you that there will be no more going in and out during the hearing.”

10:30 Liz & Autumn enter & are seated in jury box

10:40 Autumn seated at defense table & Liz escorted out

10:45 Autumn made eye contact and heart-hands with family. Federal Marshall behind Autumn looking at phone. Family responds with heart-hands. Autumn cries.

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS
US vs. Cameron Arnold

10:50 Judge returns briefly – left materials on desk, will be right back.

10:52 on record

• Judge makes speech about wanting to be respectful and understands that the defendant has had their name legally changed. Wants to use their “nom de guerre” and requests the defendant states their name for the court.
• Autumn identifies herself as Autumn Hill
• Judge says he will use her preferred name and preferred pronouns and wants to make it clear that the “name used on the filing was not the choice of the court.”
• Defense discusses that objectionable evidence (statements made by Morris against Hill) should be suppressed.
• Judge makes comment about this not being WWIII and suggests talking to the justice department face to face about appropriate redactions.

11:00 Prosecutor claims redactions are not possible in the video

• Judge asks if they are planning to show the video today
• Defense states that the 2 minute video that the Prosecution is referencing does not apply to this motion. There is no way to redact her testimony.
• Judge states that the motion has merit but it is not workable.
• Motion in limine is taken under advisement. Motion is denied without prejudice.
• Autumn escorted out.

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS
4:25-CR-259-P
US vs Elizabeth Soto

11:05 Liz returned to courtroom

11:07 Judge returns to courtroom

• Defense tells judge they filed a response yesterday. Judge confirms receipt and apologizes for not responding.
• Defense will keep argument to the first 2 searches.
• The search of the vehicle
• 4th Amendment doesn’t protect a car the same as a house but there was not enough for probable cause here.
• Judge asks how much weight should the car’s proximity to the scene have.
• Defense agrees it has some weight but there is still not enough to justify the warrant. The only justification is that she was arrested near the scene and her home address is on her ID. Hunch is not enough.
• Judge indicates that if that’s all that is on a warrant that would disqualify it
• Defense argues that other people had muddy firearms, she did not.

11:15 Prosecutor a warrant only requires probable cause, the warrant says “cause to suspect” then goes on with many citations to “Wilson”

• The government attached affidavits for the car and house.
• Morris van was leaving the scene with firearms and body armor
• 2 more individuals 2 blocks away including Liz were heading in the direction of her nearby car.
• Found propaganda material at Morris house and the government determined there was a nexus and therefore it was probable there would be evidence in Ms Soto’s care and home as well.

11:22 Defense argues there was more evidence in Wilson than there is here and this court found it bare bones.

• What was found in Morris’s car has nothing to do with Ms. Soto. The flyers have nothing to do with Ms Soto. Just because she was near her car doesn’t mean anything in her home or car can be searched.
• Judge begins to understand the argument and says “for example a domestic abuse case, it doesn’t give a right to search their car. I get what you’re saying now. Sorry I’m slow.”

11:30 Recess until 11:50 to review and considered

11:52 Judge returned. He took a look at the standards and findings in other cases.

• Bare-bones “wholly conclusory statements that lack…” well-reasoned justification e.g. officer list just biographic information and that a crime took place.
• The affidavits in question explain who, what, when, where, and why.
• Wilson is distinguishable
• “Attackers” had digital and print media
• Probable cause well met even if it is bare-bones

12:00 Judge continues… arrest was minutes after shooting with other “attackers”

• I’ve considered as a whole. Page 9 of the affidavits – the car was found at the scene, co-defendant fled scene in vehicle that was in possession of multiple firearms. It was a conspiracy to conduct an anti-government attack.
• Warrant sought to search for items related to attempted murder and conspiracy including radios, guns, body armor.
• Beliefs shared with groups responsible for riots at ICE facilities across the country.
• The judge or court does not agree or accept the statements in the warrant.

12:07 Motion is denied. Court adjourned.

---

Note-Taker B — 20260210_2.pdf

Pre-trial Motion Notes
02/10/2026 (10:50 am)
(2 Suppression Motions)

Defendant #1 first: U.S. vs Cameron Arnold

• 1st Suppression Motion Denied without prejudice. Judge will take the motion in limine under advisement.
• Judge states he will refer to the Defendant as Autumn Hill and use she/her pronouns.
• Defendant: Objectionable evidence was provided by co-def. Morris.
• Judge says he is a big believer in face-to-face convos and asks if the Defendant has spoken to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
• Defendant says he has, yes.
• Judge asks to speak to them during lunch.
• Judge “This isn’t WW3”
• Prosecution is quite mumbly; says he will be showing video evidence? During trial. 2 min video.
• Judge: “Let’s see if we can protect Ms. Hill.”
• Judge denies motion w/o prejudice.
• Cannot make a premature ruling before we get there
• Defendant asks for motion in limine
• Judge will take this motion in limine under advisement
• Court recess
• Autumn Hill taken out

---

2nd Suppression Hearing
U.S. vs. Elizabeth Soto

• Ms. Soto is here and present

Defense:

• 3 search warrants to argue.
• The only additional info is (3rd)
• The government’s first search of Ms. Soto’s vehicle is the government’s strongest. Laws don’t protect vehicle as much as house.
• Defense: he doesn’t believe that is reasonable cause for an officer to search her vehicle.
• Judge asks how much weight can the court put on her car being near the attack?
• Defense argues that no one saw her going to her vehicle to grab anything.
• Argues there was nothing connecting this to her house
• Only facts = she was near the scene, this is her car, others drove down in cars together, some of them had guns, some where muddy.
• “I still don’t see what this had to do with her home”
• I don’t see how these affidavits are sufficient.
• Judge says there are generalized statements

Prosecution:

• “Defense is just arguing probable cause”
• “barebones” repeated
• Prosecution: Defense is missing the mark “even if ___ lived there, and _ makes that dubious at best.”
• Page 45 on some document, page 49.
• Exhibit #1=
• Exhibit #2 = car, paragraph 9 of _
• Exhibit #3 =
• Prosecution says Morris’s car is leading “that’s two yards away”… covered in mud, body armor,
• Prosecution argues this is sufficient evidence that she was arrested near her car
• Prosecution paragraph 16 found a flyer, extremist ideology, etc
• Prosecution says the Judge signed it, and ___ – sufficient nexus… repeated
• Repeats “people in black”
• Communicated via internet, flyers computers nexus
• “This is in the affidavit”
• Prosecution says they are looking for the above, plus guns, paraphernalia, etc, ammunition, cell phones, “looking for the means”
• He says probable cause is there. They were moving towards the car.

Defense:

• There is no evidence Ms. Soto ever visited Morris’s house.
• The Government talking about Morris’s car and house have nothing to do with Ms. Soto. They did not ride together, talk, etc. This has nothing to do with Ms. Soto.
• Flyer – there is no evidence that she even saw this flyer, nor that it would be in her house, any flyer or evidence.
• Judge compares this situation to a DV case, the officer wouldn’t have rights to search the aggressor’s car.
• Judge says first and foremost is defendants need to be protected their constitutional rights, what’s allowed under constitution, proper evidence, full fair trial, all are innocent until proven guilty.
• Judge would like to take a break, look back at these affidavits and motions, and make a ruling after a 20 minute recess.
• After the recess, US vs Elizabeth Soto motion denied.
• KERA media reporter is here.
• Elizabeth is wearing a yellow jumpsuit, Tarrant County Jail written on back, chained at the hands and feet, chains are jingling.
• 11:50 a.m. Judge took a break, considered argument, looked at Wilson + Morris cases and standards
• Judge ruling – This circuit has defined bare bones to be “…”, provided a text book example of …
• Judge doesn’t see __ here
• These affidavits provide who, what, where, when of crimes alleged for 10 pages.
• The affidavits here are not bare bones and do provide sufficient nexus
• Wilson is distinguishable motion denied.
• The attackers used digital, social, and print media to communicate… – repeated x 2-3
• Probable cause has been met
• Bullet-proof vests, walkie talkies, repeated
• Page 9 of the affidavit – warrant accounts that Morris fled the scene back to a car with guns, walkie talkies, body armor, guns were seized at the scene, firearm was discharged group communicated through digital, social, and print media to spread extreme anti-government propaganda, to plan for the Prairieland attack, and have this digital print in their homes. Seized the printers used by them.
• Have an organizational believe that … to… ___
• Court does not believe all of this, stating this is what is here and sworn.
• Printing and distributing anti-government materials against ICE facilities around the country/nation

---

Note-Taker C — 20260210_3.pdf

02/10/2026 9:57 a.m.

• Court says Dez cannot contest the search, they reference the Jefferson case.
• Argument is that Dez does not have a key to drop off the box
• Another case is cited, they talk about the difference between car vs residence
• They talk about the 4th amendment and being a visitor to a property
• Judge “Dez failed to contest, there’s no Franks Violation”
• They context of the call, “Maria on the phone said talked to Danny, Dez was charged after the events.”
  From phone convo:
• “Mari says that Dani doesn’t know.”
• “Ines doesn’t know”
• “Mari: Danny can explain” (Kels is mentioned)
• “Mari tells Dez to tell the community what happened.”
• Mari to Dez “get stuff out of the house”
• Judge concludes that ‘go to the house’ statement is not misleading.
• There is no Franks Violation.
• Judge says there is probable cause.
• Concludes at 10:27 am

10:50
Autumn suppression motion

• Judge asks to confirm pronouns
• No agreement for feds for redacting evidence
• Feds say they cannot redact the evidence, the video will not come out at trial
• Judge refuses suppression, denies the request.

11:05
Elizabeth Soto

• Motion to Suppress
• Defense: affidavit to suppress the search, first the search of the car.
• The 4th amendment does not protect the car
• Defense says there is not enough cause to search the car
• Judge referred to the protest as an ‘attack’
• Defense: Liz is arrested near the scene, these are the only facts that were used to search the car.
• Not enough PC in the affidavit to search the Soto home
• The Feds – mention ‘Bare bones case’ and Wilson case
• They go on to say Morris’s car had guns at the stop.
• The suspects were stopped close to Morris’s house.
• Evidence at Morris’s house is ‘anti-government material’ and these establish nexus
• Affidavit has enough to establish cause.
• Feds say they were looking for armor, guns, which is not the same as the Wilson case.
• The defense says the Wilson case had more facts, the Morris car had nothing to do with Liz’s car.
• Judge wants fair trial and takes break at 11:52 pm to review Wilson case findings
• Judge comes back references 5th circuit Wilson case, bare bones affidavit, there is sufficient nexus.
• “Morris fled to the car for armor” Liz’s car was nearby, the court finds probable cause.
• “The attackers used socials to communicate”, the car is at the scene, the warrant, conspiracy to attack, all PC for why they were looking for armor guns and print materials. The materials found justified the warranty on September 15th. They mentioned looking for materials with ideology and mentioned the Soto’s printed ideological material
• All Motion to suppress denied.