> Unless they have direct evidence [...] it's a pre-crime judgment.
But how does it being pre-crime judgment etc. imply it is a pretext too?
Just look up the definition:
- A pretext is "a false reason given to hide the real motivation behind an action." [1]
- A pretextual stop is "pull(ing) people over for minor rule violations [...] as an excuse to conduct a search and go fishing for other crimes." [2]
Notice it says "false", "hide", and "other crime"? And not merely "bad reason" to "serve as an excuse" to "search for any crime"?
Here, they appear to have done exactly what they claimed they their intentions were, and as a result discovered exactly what they suspected. Is anyone disputing this? If this was a "pretext", then what the heck are we alleging were their "real" motivations and "other" crimes? How could they have possibly been more honest in their intentions?