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.

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.

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.