I am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous. The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is ref

I am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous. The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is referenced by the author as being present in a separate email (which for some reason they didn’t include...?) and then qualified via a source as being facetious. Even if it was there and taken literally, I fail to see anywhere in law, case law, the email, and/or the article that suggests “exigency” is sufficient justification for violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. To the best of my knowledge, that does not exist.