Although the venue of the crime was certainly different, the rules for admission of evidence in court for the cases emanating from the January 6th assault on the Capitol remain constant. Usually, evidence obtained from a defendant to be used against that same defendant falls within the category of significant, which is why the government routinely seeks such evidence and relentlessly fights for its admission. For instance, search warrants executed at a defendant's house or the defendant's financial institution's accounts, or conversations with the defendant intercepted over lawful wiretaps or with undercover agents, or informants and cooperators, or from video surveillance usually involve probative and compelling evidence. On the other hand, this same evidence frequently requires the prosecution to elude, and the court to interpret, the parameters of constitutional roadblocks. Thus, the recent case involving one of the January 6th Capitol defendants, United States v. Guy Reffitt, 21-cr-00032 (Dist. Col. 2021), involved the government's possession of, and the admissibility, of the defendant's own helmet camera digital video evidence of the events, and will be discussed in detail in this article.