He had a straightforward argument. He chose not to make it straightforward. I can only assume he did it to make it seem like there is more than what it is? I thought his best bet was being candid, brief and forthright with the court. One paragraph. It's still a weak argument but better than the mysteriousness nonsense he wants to imply.
It's not an argument even reduced to one paragraph. And by "not an argument," I mean, "a made up, bullshit, trying to be clever even knowing full well the cop did not LIE" argument. It doesn't even cite the correct standard, iirc. It is a bad-faith argument.
Of course you're right that it is also poorly written. Whether that is deliberate (to obscure and confuse), a matter of ability, or simply trying to make lemonade, who knows. To be fair, when you don't have a real argument, and your real point is raising red herrings and sowing seeds of character doubt (
or just being your usual distinction-without-a-difference Nick Rekieta self, who will argue endlessly about meaningless trivia, thinking people just don't understand, when plenty do but are just 8 miles ahead of him in the marathon race while he's still at the starting line well ackshuallying about his bib number and the wind gust, hyperventilating about the pollen count and humidity's impact on his allergies, searching his fanny pack for his $9000 cooling towel, and demanding a restart), this is about what you wind up with. Hard to extract a real point because there really isn't one, as your paragraph shows.
There's no LIE and no obfuscation/ deliberate intent to mislead. We can deduce this in part because nothing allegedly obfuscated matters. Was the lack of info on screen resolution on whatever device he watched the streams on a LIE? Or that he did not say time and date he watched it? Or what color shirt Aaron was wearing when they spoke? No. (And if he'd said Aaron's shirt was yellow when it was cream, still no reason to infer anything more than an honest mistake, or low-level negligence (exhibit A why thd cop's statement should be economical - get rid of it if not relevant)).
None of that detail is relevant for the warrant or necessary for the judge to understand the situation and how they got there. Therefore not included in it. Same goes for including more detail on the videos than was included. He watched Rekieta's stream many times, including watching the coke stream. It is not important for these purposes whether he saw it here or there; what is important is what he saw and reasonably believed was a recording of Nick, which it was. He watched Nick, saw behavior that rightly concerned him, and put that in his statement, noting that the cokestream had since been removed from public view on Nick's channel. All correct.
Extra detail about which copy of a stream was watched would be fluff, meaningless, and probably irritating to read. NORMAL people do not know or care about hyper distinctions (which are, importantly, of no importance in this case) among being "taken off of," removed from, privated, hidden, etc. If that becomes relevant at some point as a matter of fact, fine. But it's not a LIE for a cop to say what he said.
Similarly, in the real world no one knows about - and certainly does not express hyper-distinctions about - channels and streams and restreaming and clips and the ways they differ (or don't). For the most part it doesn't matter and the cop wasn't trying to be clever by not writing a treatise on internet broadcast permutations.
No evidence of intentional misrepresentation nor even negligence. The judge had the necessary facts, and in fact the facts support a pc. That's it.
The prosecutor pointed out a Fr hearing isn't warranted bc the standard requires more than mere negligence. Pomplun's statement of probable cause wasn't even negligent, and certainly wasn't reckless or intentionally misleading. She blunted argument about that by simply giving the standard, which Rekieta's motion, iirc, ignored (avoided stating outright), and the facts, which support her point that whatever quibbles there may be about how Pomplun wrote it up, they did have the correct stuff, here's what the language said, here's how it aligns to the facts, and there was no actual or attempted deception of the court.
