I have to ask a simple question. What part of Probable Cause do the defense not get? He keeps asking if LE had any proof and if they stated what their source of information was. In my years of following trials, I have never seen LE provide all their evidence in a Probable Cause affidavit and I wish the LE on the stand would just say "we had probable cause because the statements by the defendant did not match up to the evidence found in the car, i.e. there is no way he could not have seen his child when driving the 5 minutes from were he strapped his child in, or when he dropped off said package he purchased at lunch. Furthermore, he was combative with LE when they were responding to his dead child and the responders could not get him off the phone, who incidently, was not 911 or his wife informing her of the situation".
As for giving all the details about where the information was obtained, if the Judge wanted or needed that information, based on what he had been told, he/she would have asked for it.
I understand the defense has to put on a defense, but in this case, asking over and over "where's the proof?" is frustrating after a while. Search warrants are authority to go and find evidence in situations where LE are being told a story that is not believeable.
If Nancy Grace can get a car just like his and re-create the scene (without a deceased child in the car), how much more can trained professionals not question a story that is just not adding up? That's just how things work. As someone stated up thread, if you had to have the evidence before you could get a warrant to get the evidence, no one would ever go on trial.
Ok. I've had my rant.
.