parading April around like a side piece
"Like" a side piece? She
is a side piece.
Just because they drop the issue doesn't mean the prosecution won't. Nick's trial (IF) is going to be a fireworks show. All the more for getting it televised.
What do you mean - the prosecutor won't drop what? They have the application/ warrant; it's up to the defense to challenge it. I'm just saying any argument that watching a restream/recording is inherently materially different to watching the original live stream is a loser and if it gets past challenge based on alleged misrepresentation, there's no argument to be made.
There are different stages/levels of the process. Rn, he's trying to get the warrant tossed because THE COP IS A LIAR, primarily - he didn't specify where he found a recording of the stream and couldn't have watched the original "my stream" bc Nick hid it, and the cop deliberately omitted this information from the application in order to lie to the Court.
Second argument would be it wasn't "the original" and therefore is not a reliable source of info (bc compression TOTALLY changes what's onscreen (apparently to the point of adding in people and whole hours of acting like a drug-addled monkey)), so should be excluded from assessment of whether there was legitimate probable cause. That's all wet bc then you're into, well, did it show an obviously drug-influenced person? Answer is yes, and cop has the training to support his statements that in his professional judgment it does. Remember the warrant wasn't based (or at least not solely, idr) on "I spied cocaine on/under his nose," but rather his whole behavior - so there's no pixel-bitching that should need to happen (no doubt it will).
But if the above is determined to be a misrepresentation, the question becomes - was it material? Was what was represented materially different to reality? So - is the recording reviewed materially different to the original to the point that it changes any assessment based on it? Answer is no, and that's the point I think they'll (or
should bc it's a complete loser and waste of time - oh, right, so they probably will insist on it) drop. Bc whatever he watched clearly shows Nick behaving like a drug-addled nut. Even if it were a chopped-up clip version (and at 4+ hours I don't think it is), if it showed Nick as he was in that stream, it's not a material misrepresentation of how he was in that stream and therefore any failure to note specific source is immaterial, warrant upheld. And as we know, there is nothing in that stream or it's various recorded renditions that shows anything but a coked-up drunk.
If it gets to trial, the stream is potentially relevant for a constructive possession finding. Bc Nick was not in the house at the time the cops entered, there's a speedbump to prove his dominion and control over the drugs. For (for Nick's case): he stated it was his/Kayla's bedroom; drugs were found in a safe (or 2?) - query who had access to the safe (if just Nick and/or Kayla, and coke was found there, that's good evidence of dominion/control). Against (for Nick's case): April's cards, April's presence at the time of the search, Nick not home.
They would be tried separately, so each person's charge would have to be argued irrespective of what happens in the other cases; you could have a scenario where april's presence was determined enough of a wild card to undermine the Rekietas' constructive possession, even if April is only charged for a small amount. I'm guessing they gave April the lower charge based on the amount actually on her cards/in/on her purse? Idk. You could also have a scenario where kayla's presence in the home at the time of the search, her bedroom, access to the safe (maybe?) proves constructive possession, but Nick's absence at the time of the warrant undermines his.
(Tbh, it's very interesting that - peanut gallery aside - nick is getting lawyers, etc., as though he's the main show, when it's Kayla who potentially has more vulnerability for constructive possession. Very telling.)
But so, the stream could help support Nick's constructive possession to the extent it shows coke on Nick's person or shows a person people can reasonably believe is on it in his home. So you might look at this stream (
recording - it's going to be a recording regardless). And with the best available recording offered as evidence (not necessarily what the cop watched) it will be on nick to prove it is of such dubious reliability (bc compression, lol, etc.) that no jury or judge should see it. Same for the neglect/endangerment charges.
- sorry if that's jambled, it's quick back of the envelope musings on phone, and I don't have the standard at hand for tossing a warrant based on misrepresentations, so didn't tie my comments tightly to them.
Kayla probably drifted off into the comforting embrace of Captain Kirk and Lorazepam extra hard that night.
I'd put money on it. Nick has this set up concubine-style now, so he rotates at his leisure, and no doubt on April's nights, Kayla is zonked tf out. I guess on Kayla's nights April gets an extra rail and permission to drain a (cheap) whiskey bottle, crying alone in the murder shower in the second house.