You know what the attorney is stating is factual? How?
“You know what the attorney is stating is factual? How?”
That’s not what I said.
It’s really simple. A fact is a fact. The assertion is either true or it is not true.
It is immaterial in any case. The 4th Amendment does not get thrown away either way. It is instructive that the probable cause narrative just falls apart once it sees the light of day outside of the usual venue of cops, court rooms and officialdom. It is instructive in that these flimsy narratives are routinely constructed and used by cops and courts and we don’t often get to see them. In this case we did get to see the flimsy probable cause narrative and it just doesn’t stand the smell test. However the very flimsy nature of the presented probable cause narrative tells us that courts cops and officialdom has become lazy, arrogant in the application of probable cause. In this case we get to see it for what it is.
But to reiterate, whether or not a history of “anal bundling” exist, it in no way strengthens the very fragile probable cause narrative presented by these officers.