I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges." he was wanted, why do they need a pretext for the stop?

1. those charges were dismissed

2. the article address that specifically:

> The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.

> The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records.

Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge.

If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright? Therefore they needed the marijuana probable cause to stop and search him.

Regardless the disturbing part is that they're using surveillance state footage of a person traveling to a state where something is legal as "probable cause" for a crime.

IANAL - if they break the bail conditions the judge may issue a warrant depending on severity, clearly a warrant was not issued here, otherwise there’s no need for pretext like you said.

Article also states bail jumping charge was dismissed but the weed charge is the only charge that remains.

Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better.

> The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition.

so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant.

> Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time

Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him.

The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana.

Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana".

Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess.

direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...

The article is wrong on this point: the fact that he was crossing state lines was not a pretext for the stop.

They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that.

If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes.

By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge.

They already had enough PC for the stop, and they could have searched the car as incident to the arrest at any time.