[pdkl95]

Of course. That would be relevant if I was talking about the legal theory of the case itself. If you had read my previous comment, you should have noticed that I'm talking about the popular perception.

I'm trying to give you a warning that we've struck an iceberg and the ship of state is taking on water. You're responding with technicalities about an unsinkable double hull. If you're not going to listen to the warning, that's your business.

[ikeboy]

I view this detail that you're harping on as just such a technicality.

If you want to make a point about the media exaggerating such technicalities to warp public perception, I may well agree.

But you're trying to show that there's a perception that "law enforcement and this judge are blatantly ignoring their half of the social contract when they skip the warrant requirement." This is not a very good example to show that. It may be misinterpreted by people who already want to find evidence of double standards, but it can't be the source of such a perception in the first place. You can't use it as an example of such.