The dissent really rips the ruling apart. I particularly enjoy the passive-aggressive footnotes. The ruling really starts with a presumption of guilt and uses it to retroactively construct an argument for probable cause. I hope the appellant continues the fight, because there's clearly error here:
“A finding of probable cause must be supported by the objective facts known to the officer at the time of the search.”
They use that citation, but then the ruling goes on to argue interpreting what the text messages mean is "support" ==> that's subjective, not objective fact. They completely undermined their argument.
