Is it Illegal To Think?

It sounds crazy, but in an era where police investigations rely on search histories, social posts, and AI chats, it’s a question we have to ask. When does a digital thought cross the line into legal evidence?

As we continue to build our relationship with AI and particularly, AI chatbots, there is a wealth of knowledge and data accumulating ‘about you’. I put that in quotes because there is a distinct separation between what you might query online and who you actually are.

That is what I’m here to discuss today. Is it illegal to ask, to question, to think in today’s age of technology?

The Case — 2025 Palisades Fire

There have been many cases involving online internet usage being used as evidence in court and on trial. It’s been around for ages but it’s always been treated as “circumstantial” on the basis that a digital footprint shows what someone was thinking or researching, but never proves who actually pulled the trigger, set the flame, or committed the physical act.

As a result, a ChatGPT conversation log, a Snapchat thread, or a standard SMS chain can almost never be enough on its own to secure a guilty verdict. While digital footprints can support a broader pool of physical evidence, it breaks down when prosecutors try to use it as evidence of intent let alone the action.

Take the trial of Jonathan Rinderknecht, accused of starting what became the devastating Palisades Fire in Los Angeles—one of the most high-profile arson cases in recent history. Lacking direct physical evidence like fingerprints, fire accelerants, or eyewitnesses, federal prosecutors leaned heavily on Rinderknecht’s ChatGPT history. They pointed to AI-generated images of burning cities, dark queries about societal inequality, and a prompt asking whether a person could be blamed for a fire caused by a discarded cigarette to argue he possessed a guilty mind.

Yet when presented to a jury, that “digital brain dump” fell flat. Ten out of twelve jurors voted to acquit, forcing a mistrial. The trial revealed the fundamental flaw of treating digital logs as proof of action: asking a chatbot a dark question, venting frustration, or exploring a morbid curiosity online reflects what someone was thinking, but it does not prove they pulled the trigger or lit the flame.

Also, if you are interested, that case is restarting in October 2026 so we will see whether they were able to find adequate evidence to supplement the chat logs.

Are We Allowed to Think in Private Anymore?

Yes, because in the eyes of the law, a thought is still not a crime, no matter how egregious or sketchy it may be. No, because the illusion of digital privacy is entirely gone.

None of our searches, prompts, or messages are truly private—and as these digital trails find their way into courtrooms, we are being forced to accept an unsettling reality: our private conversations are public records from the moment they are typed with your fingers.

Is There Anything We Can Do?

No, not really, and that isn’t sound nihilism talking. That is just the reality of where we are. All my thoughts with AI chatbots, my messages, my posts, and even my innocent memo app have turned into my single biggest security risk.

Heck I’ve even asked how to make a wildfire or if I would be liable if I smoked a cigarette and it dropped on the floor and ignited a forest. It doesn’t make you a criminal to be curious and I’m glad the courts are not blindly associating digital footprints with intent at any substantial degree.

So come get me! I’m guilty of thinking things!!

Here are my takeaways for you