Patrik Mathews is in U.S. federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland this morning. Hearing underway. It will focus on motions filed by lawyers for Mathews and co-accused, Brian Lemley Jr., seeking to suppress evidence in the case

I’ll provide updates here.

First up is the lawyer for Brian Lemley Jr. He’s laying out his issues with affidavits law enforcement used to secure warrants during their investigation. He’s focused on affidavits used to secure warrants for video and audio surveillance.

The lawyer argues probable cause wasn't met for these warrants.

Main point seems to be that while the accused were members of a neo-Nazi group, that's not sufficient to show probable cause.

While the accused were found to engage in offensive speech and discuss violence in the abstract, the lawyer argues there was no evidence that showed plans for imminent lawless action.

Mathews' lawyer, Joseph Balter, is now up.

Balter is focusing on two main concerns: exhaustion and necessity. Those standards mean agents have to exhaust all other potential investigative techniques before escalating to video and audio surveillance of a private residence.

Balter says the agents have to show why video and audio surveillance is necessary in the case. He says neither the standard of exhaustion or necessity were met.

Balter is citing Brandenburg V. Ohio, a landmark First Amendment case drawing the boundary between free speech and incitement of imminent lawless action.

Balter says there was a lot of talk by the defendents in this case but not a concrete plan for imminent lawless action.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom now up.

Windom is countering the arguments from defence attorneys.

He says law enforcement acted reasonably and in good faith. Also says precedent is court should only take a common sense review of the affidavits/warrants, but what defence is asking for is a hyper-technical analysis.

Windom says the argument from the defence comes down to this: six federal judges, four in Greenbelt and two in Maryland, involved with singing off on the warrants, were wrong. He calls this an extraordinary argument.

On the question of separating the prosecutions of Mathews and Lemley, Windom says the prosecution is cognizant of not putting forward too much before the jury that would result in the need of severing the cases.

Another prosecutor also mentions they can provide the jury with instructions for how to consider the evidence. This would be another way to avoid separating the cases.

Court is now taking a break. They plan to reconvene in about an hour.

Court is back in session. The judge says he's prepared to rule on some of the motions before the court, but not all of them.

First search warrant is up. It is from Sept. 5, 2019.

The judge rules probable cause was met to secure the search warrant. The motion to suppress the evidence found through this warrant fails.

Judge rules that subsequent warrants – all of them from September to November 2019 – largely relied upon the same information.

As a result, he rules the standard of probable cause for them was met. Motions to suppress the evidence resulting from them fail.

The judge now moves onto the warrants for a wiretap and video surveillance of the apartment Lemley and Mathews were sharing in Delaware.

Standard for this is higher, the judge says.