The
prosecution's response to the motion is straightforward and bare bones. Quite the contrast.
They definitely seem to be going with the argument that even if some of the facts in the affidavit were incorrect or omitted, the totality of the evidence would still provide probable cause.
They wisely ignore all of the extraneous Odinist stuff.
However, they don't seem to push back on the defense's argument about what BB says she saw on the bridge, her description of the car at CPS, or how the witness who saw the man on the road described him (muddy, not muddy & bloody, & with a tan jacket), so I guess those parts of the defense's motion are likely correct.
If I had to guess, I suspect the judge will grant a Franks hearing and then uphold the warrant after hearing arguments. But I guess we'll see.