Sure. Let’s start pushing back against over-incarceration by not punishing people that knowingly did something wrong and flies in the face of the country’s supposed values.
They falsely claimed he'd made an actionable threat. We can't remove their power to request warrants and arrest people for legitimately threatening others, right?
The magistrate judge is supposed to be a check on that power. Unfortunately, they've become rubber stamps for the most part. In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest.
I think there are ways to have a system where judges do that, without having to criminally prosecute either cops or judges.
OP says that they left out information (which cops do all the time) but that the warrant shouldn't have been granted either way because of SCOTUS precedent.
Would welcome reform that makes it harder to lie on warrant affidavits, although again, that should be civil in nature.
The affidavit did not support the post was a threat.[1] This was why FIRE said the information left out should not have mattered. Any reasonable competent person would have denied the warrant. But the information left out could have overcome incompetence possibly. This was why FIRE said it was important.
A reasonable system would have required the investigator attached an unedited full screen image which included the post. And the magistrate attempted to view the post if possible to counter deceit. And required the magistrate had legal education.
Makes sense.