sbbm
BBM:
I'll go ahead and take issue with each of those statements.
Because I disagree with all of them.
First, there is ample evidence that CCSO has probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.
The proof of that is the fact that they've executed multiple search warrants, including 2 separate search warrants for the home and one for a property that BM worked at.
You don't get a judge to sign off on search warrants unless there's probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.
JMO.
"Probable Cause" In Colorado For Traffic Stops, Searches And Arrests
Yes, either a crime has been committed in the house _OR_ evidence of a crime might be found there (not necessarily that the crime occurred there).
I'm not sure a pristine bike nor a discarded helmet alone carry enough weight to justify SW, negating all other elements we think we know (SM alone, BM not home, DDs not home, no known sightings).
But, we have a missing person; no reported (AFAWK) sighting of SM other than BM's claimed "5:00 AM" sighting of SM sleeping in bed.
There is no reported sighting (AFAWK) of SM out and about riding a bike.
It stands to reason LE would want to search the house and a judge would likely sign off on a SW given those exigent circumstances.
BM, being the spouse, naturally comes under at least a measured amount of suspicion. Due diligence.
Even if there were signs of a struggle at the alleged location of bike discovery and/or even if the bike showed damage, if I were leading the investigation I would seek a SW for the house given the circumstances: SM was home alone, not seen since "5:00 AM" and did the perp(s) return to the house to rob after abducting and/or disappearing SM?
This is reasonable observation.
Now... add to that what we've witnessed and did not witness, that "measured amount of suspicion" has ticked up quite a bit; he certainly hasn't done himself any favors... other than to not have his image recorded during interviews... because maybe he realizes body language experts would have had a field day.