Agree with all of that. That agent wanted a SW and the wording was designed just for that purpose. I should have explained what I meant by 'misleading' and that is for the majority of us on here that are reading this affidavit - not LE. That is why your explanation of cell phone data was so important. In fact, now that this affidavit is loose out in the public arena, it could be misleading to those persons as well.(snipped by me for length)
I agree with your conclusions. I don’t think it’s misleading as much as using the gray areas to the investigator’s advantage. She can truthfully say he was in the proximity, because proximity is a vague word. She can say he was likely outside of the house because the data showed a greater-than-not chance that he was outside of his house. Keep in mind, as well, that she also caveats it with being the “initial analysis”, so there is still wiggle room for that to ultimately be an incorrect statement. Writing affidavits is almost an art, and you have to know how to work within the uncertainties to achieve the results you’re looking for. I absolutely 100% cannot fault her for anything she wrote. That being said, anything she couched with “possibly” or “likely” or similar should not be taken as 100% fact, because if it was a plain fact it would have been addressed as such.
I think that the house could be somewhat excluded because of where it lies in relation to the cell towers. It appears to be right on the edge of two sectors of two towers, so it’s possible that the tower overlap was enough to cut the house out of the picture while retaining a bunch of the rest of the property. Whether that’s accurate or not (phone in house vs phone not in house) isn’t for me to say - that’s a level of precision that would take actual site surveys and capabilities that I don’t have to prove.